posted
This thread is what happens when my wife insists on listening to a Terry Goodkind book-on-CD while we're driving back from the rifle range.
It occurred to me after my practice session that wizards in all of these books seem to have an implied magical aiming system for their magical projectiles. I mean, they are taking snap shots, often at moving targets, often while moving themselves, and they never miss. Sometimes their target dodges out of the way, but they never clean miss.
Here's some perspective on the issue of aiming. I know there are at least a couple of hunters or hobby marksmen on this site; I know there are a lot more people with little shooting experience. For the latter, take my word for it--hitting a human-sized target at even a short range--like 50 yards--isn't as easy as you'd think. With a rifle from a supported position, I can do it all day long. Off-handed (holding the rifle in my hands without other support) I can still do it all day long, but the shot placement isn't as good. Make me run--or even walk--while trying to shoot, and my accuracy will drop by 50% or more. And that's a short range, with a long gun. Change that to a pistol, and I'll hit 49/50 at if I'm standing still aiming. If I'm moving, or "point shooting" (pointing the gun like I point my finger, without sighted aim) cut that in half again. And I'm a pretty fair shot among shooters.
Someone please do me a favor and write a fantasty novel in which you either: a) admit that there is a magic guidance system for your magic projectiles; or b) have wizards limited by the realities of hitting a target at range.
posted
Ah, but you see...a hero who can't split the proverbial arrow from nine hundred paces (at a run) isn't much of a hero, now is he? At least, that's what many writers seem to think. Personally, I like an MC who's internal dialogue (whilst shooting at someone) runs like this:
"Heh, heh...now I got ya. [EXPLETIVE]! Ok...now I've got ya! [EXPLETIVE...EXPLETIVE]!"
Not only does it inject some light humor into an otherwise dull run-and-gun scene, but trickles a lot more satisfaction down to the reader when the character actually manages to hit (or wing) what he's been aiming at.
The thing with Goodkind's archery is this...he totally ignores the factors of wind, distance (involving the kinetic energy of the bow), apparent distance (parallax), the weight of different arrow types, and so on. Just about the only thing he relies on for realism is the type of arrowhead being used...which I applaude him for. But that's beside the point. If Richard (his MC) can cause all those natural factors to 'cooperate' just by 'calling' the target to himself at will, it takes all the chance out of the equation. Sometimes...and I know this by experience...a really, really good shot is 90% luck, 9% timing, and 1% your finger slipping on the trigger/bowstring at just the right moment (which should be lumped in with luck, I suppose). Don't get me wrong...skill factors heavily into good shooting most of the time. But the most interesting feats of marksmanship generally involve situations where the shooter shouldn't have been able to succeed.
The problem is, most writers allow their MC's to succeed in this area too often, just to make them more 'kewl' or fitting with a preconceived notion of how the character should be.
Make 'em more human, I say. Make 'em miss from time to time. I don't care if they're damn good; that usually makes me like the character even more. Just be sure to factor in the 'screwups' and settle into some kind of realism on a shot-to-shot basis.
Hmph.
Inkwell ----------------- "The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp." -Anonymous
[This message has been edited by Inkwell (edited December 20, 2006).]
posted
My personal experience of archery is limited to gym courses in high school and college (they didn't have fencing), and my knowledge of firearms is limited to what I read in books. But I know it's harder to hit the targets than it's often made to look.
Ever see one of those Westerns where an uncertain-but-large number of bad guys blaze away at a limited number of good guys, but never hit them...but the good guys fire back and nail the bad guys with just one or two shots each? And, often, with firearms that, I've read elsewhere, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at that kind of range?
I'm hip deep in a novel where, at one point, and at points coming up, I have my lead character form and throw balls of fire (or balls of plasma) by magic (or nanotechnology). My heroine doesn't understand the how and why of it, but I know I have to have some kind of system in my own head to make it work for me (and possibly other readers).
posted
Make your MC a quarterback. There aren't many people alive who can throw an object accurately at a moving target as well as an NFL pocket-passer like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. And even they have bad misses and off days.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting thread, and it makes me feel good to know that I've been writing "wizards that miss fairly often" and didn't realize it was "abnormal"! I shoot too, and did some archery back in my youth (I was never very good at archery, but my hubby was a champion archer - I'm better with a handgun or rifle or shotgun or even a throwing knife than I am with archery). I agree on the drop in accuracy when you're moving, and/or when the targets moving (clay pigeons, anyone? Took me about six tries to even wing one the first time I shot skeet and I'm a good shot!). Perhaps it's because I'm aware of this "moving target" problem that I've written my battle scenes with a lot of misses, a lot of "injuries" rather than solid hits, etc. Writing it that way was subconscious, I think - I wasn't trying to buck the "wizards are always accurate" trend - I was just trying to be realistic. Cool beaners! I did it right! (I guess!) LOL!
posted
Depending on the kind of magic involved, I can think of aa couple of different aiming mechanisms. If the fire/plasma balls are actually being hurled at the foe, then it comes down to raw accuracy skill - like pitching a baseball. So your magic user is going to have to practice the physical act of throwing.
If the casting involves spiritual energy, perhaps the balls are guided by spirits. "Sic 'em, Casper!" Or it could be a mental tag - you have to focus on the foe you're aiming at, like painting a target for a laser guided missile. Lose eye contact or line of sight and your shot goes wild.
posted
I think that a magical aiming system is pretty much implied when the spell is cast directly rather than by a device.
Think of it this way...of what does the act of aiming a spell consist? Unless there is an overt physical action "balls are actually being hurled at the foe" sort of thing or "magical power is discharged in a set direction from a device" then the act of aiming has to be accomplished mentally. That means that the wizard relies on either innate or sensory knowledge of the target location and casts the spell to affect it.
Also, ninety-nine point nine percent of fantasy writers are lazy-@$$ authors who never bother to think about realism. Even when you look at the ones good enough to get published, it's still at least half
posted
entertaining for the moment that old paradox of 'realistic magic', most stories I have read need the caster to at least see the target.
It is not hard to track a moving target visually, pretty easy really. So long as the caster doesn't lose sight of the target why should concerns about accuracy be worried about? If they were like every other sort of missile, a fireball might as well be a molotov cocktail.
posted
I don't see any reason why a wizard should be limited by the laws of projectile physics. It's not a terrible stretch to imagine they wield the magic equivalents of today's smart weapons. A combat aircraft could easily down an ordinary aircraft with a single shot even though both are moving hundreds of mph, modern tanks can easily target other moving vehicles while moving themselves (if the stuff I see on the History Channel is to be believed). Unless the attackee is as sophisticated as the attacker (i.e. wizard vs. wizard), a good wizard should have a very high kill ratio with his/her ordnance under all but the most extreme situations. Maybe not perfect, but if the hero lucks out because the evil wizard bounces his fire ball off the tree next to him, it can undermine the drama.
My first thought is that the magic guidance system is somewhat inherent, and doesn't necessarily need to be explained as a separate component in the wizard's arsenal, although it could be. I'd be looking for more of an explanation in a situation where wizards could command all sorts of awesome spells, but couldn't deliver them with any more effectiveness than an ordinary archer shooting uphill on a windy day.
Of course all that presupposes wizard weapons have to "fly" though the atmosphere to reach their target. For folks that command magic (in effect, overriding physics) there might be more efficient ways to eliminate enemies . . .
[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited December 21, 2006).]
posted
great topic . Applying realism to magic will have you hit a wall somewhere though. Jobs tend to be dumbed down and unrealistic in fiction, ever notice that episode of CSI where the computer in 'use' were unplugged? The whole show simplifies bieng a detective so that people can enjoy the show . Similarly , most people don't want to know if your wizard has to do calculus in his head to accurately hit the target.. they just want to see.. or imagine.. him blowing up his orc ,urgal or what have you. Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure exactly how much calculus will help in this example. and anyone who can do than much math in their head on the fly during the middle of a fight has my vote for craziest fool around, and the smartest dude on campus. one thing to realize about a magic ball is that it (usually) would not have any weight, no mass. Therefore, wind won't have any effect on it. However, it is interesting to compare wizards to QB's or pitchers. One way that I explain the amazing accuracy in Wizard fights is that I always picture the wizards fighting somewhere in between thirty yards and two feet. at that distance, accuracy comes much more easily. (although MY quarterback wasn't accurate even at ten yards - and he couldn't stay in the box either)
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother was in the army for awhile , apparently snipers have to calculate alot on the fly to hit their targets . You don't get a pretty number to tell you distance like james bond. You just have an idea of how big stuff should be at X distance measuring with your scopes markings. And must derive from that how you aught to arc your bullet. Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that you don't calculate on the fly, you use your experience of shooting at thousands of man-sized targets during training so that you simply know the approximate distance and correct elevation.
The same thing applies to wizards, they simply know where the spell effect will occur because they have experience casting the spell. Or they've rarely cast it and can't really predict where it's going to hit. You see that a fair amount too.
posted
They are very good a estimating range (with the help of a mil-dot scope), but all that does is help them aim so as to hit the target. It doesn't replace the act of aiming, it just makes it possible for them to adjust their aim properly for the distance. The very best "snap shooters"--those who shoot without sighted aim--have an effective range of about 25 yards to hit a target the size of a pie plate.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing how to do math in my head never helped me catch fly balls...I knew where the ball would be, but could never get there...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it also depends on how well the character can multitask. I mean, won't performing the magical action require some form of concentration? That would be logical, IMO. So not only does a wizard have to conjure up the proverbial fireball, but also worry about lobbing it toward his foe "who hath been naughty in my sight."
I mean...with a firearm you just jack a round into the chamber and that's that...unless you have to make adjustments to a scope or something. There's no more intricate preparation involved. A bow, well...holding that arrow back takes a bit more multitasking than a gun, but still...you can easily become focused on aiming.
So, if your character hasn't developed his or her magical skills to the point that conjuration is nearly mindless, he or she is going to have a harder time making 'snap shots,' or 'firing' on short notice.
Inkwell ----------------- "The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp." -Anonymous
[This message has been edited by Inkwell (edited December 24, 2006).]
posted
since the "fireball" comes straight out of the wizard's hand, doesn't that make it easier to point-and-shoot? It's not a gun where the bullet comes out of a barrel that you don't always know how it is pointing on the fly, but your arm, where you know that if you are pointing at a person, the projectile will go in that direction.
It's amazing how far we can take a pointless topic.
posted
Sheesh. Didn't any of you guys ever play Dungeons and Dragons? There is a concept in D&D magic called 'area of effect', meaning a fireball doesn't have to be 100% accurate as long as the target victim is somewhere in the area of effect. A fireball isn't like throwing a lit candle, it's more like throwing a lit jar of gasoline. When it hits, it explodes outward. I still catch grief from my friends because during my first D&D adventure (well over 20 years ago) as a wizard, I tossed a fireball while our characters were all stuck in a corridor. The area of effect meant the flames did a backwash, and cremated the horses and did the others in my party substantial damage. It didn't help that my wizard's name was "Nimrod."
I feel that, although D&D magic is cliched to the point that it shouldn't be lifted out, as is, and inserted into fiction... it still is a handy system to make you think about the PHYSICS involved. Lightning bolts behave like electricity. Don't be standing in a puddle of water if one strikes nearby.
Magic in fiction should be the same way. If it involves a physical element, such as fire, electricity, gravity, what-have-you, the writer should incorporate some of the physical limitations to keep things somewhat realistic.
posted
They let you get a fireball spell on your first outing? Man, they wouldn't even let me climb onto a rooftop, and I was an elf, too.
I still vote for the idea of "magical sights", the idea that bringing a magical effect into physical reality involves envisoning the exact location in which the effect is going to emerge.
posted
I generally solve a magic aiming problem with area of effect as well, but I had actually never thought of it before that non-area spells could miss. I will have to have a few of them do so. Maybe my anti-hero gets cocky, and just throws a few spells out, which just plain don't go where he wanted. Maybe confusion or mirage magics could prevent accuracy as well. Never thought of having mages try to make their opponents miss, rather than just shielding themselves. Good idea.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd buy Survivor's "magical sights" system, but what if the magic takes time to get from point A to point B? Would it miss, or would it then be a "magical guidance system" that allows the cast magic to chase its target down?
Or maybe stories that include descriptions of a wizard being trained should have a "sniper school" portion . . .
Where's Liberty Hall when you need it? I'd love to see 20 people writing flashes about wizards coping with real-world accuracy issues.
posted
Just allow spells to be affected by levitation. Then you can guide them as they fly, and enemy wizards can knock them off course or try to send them back at you.
I always figured that's how propagating spells worked. If I'm powerful enough to summon a massive fireball, then I'd darn well better be powerful enough to move it without getting burned.
quote:I'd love to see 20 people writing flashes about wizards coping with real-world accuracy issues.
Accuracy in aim is only one facet of spell-casting.
--For spells with a verbal component (chant, incantation) you must get the pronunciation, words, enunciation, and cadence correct. --For spells with physical spell components (bat dung, feathers, herbs, belladonna, etc) you must used ingredients that meet the criteria... too fresh or too stale, and your spell can bomb. --For spells with visual components, you may need to be in line of sight, able to clearly visualize where you are going (by having been there before), etc.
Wizardry, if you take into account all the many ways it can go wrong, should be considered a complex skill that is difficult to master. And, as the Harry Potter books point out, there is a certain natural aptitude, much like being an engineer or an artist might require some innate talent.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
