10 ms·

I'm no sci-fi writer, so surely someone who is could come up with something better. But basically the development of a wizard could be applied to a gunslinger a

I'm no sci-fi writer, so surely someone who is could come up with something better. But basically the development of a wizard could be applied to a gunslinger as well. In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles. The character learns to control their breathing, emotions, posture, aiming and so on, to become more proficient. They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct, learn how to do tactical reloads and so on. Different guns also have different strengths, some better in close combat and so on. Just like a wizard has different potions, the guns have different ammunition. Some ammunition could have "special" effects, like exploding on impact, EMPs or whatever. Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would. This is just what I could come up with as I wrote the comment, so again, surely someone proficient in writing sci-fi/fantasy could come up with something much greater. But it's not hard to imagine it's not impossible to have character growth with someone who wields a pistol.

Ensorceled 3y ago
But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. I became very good with both a rifle and pistol pretty much on my own. It took years of training with masters of the craft to become proficient as a martial artist.
- capableweb 3y ago
  We're talking about wizards and stuff here, I don't think "realism" is as a hard constraint as you think. And surely someone with real combat experience would have less chance of dying in combat compared to someone (like you) who have none nor have been trained by someone who have real combat experience. Is it really that hard to imagine that one person with a gun could be more skilled because of training, knowledge and experience, than another person with a gun?
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Oh my god is that true. My son returned from Iraq mid-tour on a break. His younger brother had an airsoft game (stay with me) going on, after dark, with a dozen friends. They'd build an airsoft tower (small building, windows and a rooftop vantage) and were playing capture the tower. He chatted, loaded an airsoft rifle, and we walked down the lane to the field. As he talked to me he was casting his gaze around, raising his rifle occasionally, firing off a shot. We just walked to the tower, no attempt at concealment, no special gear. By the time we'd gotten there everybody was reloading at the reload station. He'd hit everybody, in the dark, in the grass or in the tower. Proceeded to reorganize them into squads and play for an hour or two. Had a blast that night, lots of scenarios, everybody got to play a role. Anyway yes, training makes all the difference. Holding the weapon, pointing it are the basics they teach the first day.
    - hnbear 3y ago
      Yes. Training is amazing. This whole “guns are average” argument completely ignores the huge range of gun-toting specialists from regular army grunt up to SpecOps, with side specialists like snipers. Given how many sniper movies there are, we’re not suffering from “guns are boring and ruin stories”. Similar story playing paintball. I went for my younger brothers birthday one time. A 3 person team of soldiers showed up. They moved across the maps as an obvious unit, covered each others angles, one reloading at a time, excellent aim. Trounced everyone. Three of them could have taken on dozens of civilians at once.
- tivert 3y ago
  > But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. If it's not compelling it's only because the OP's precis went into far too much detail about actual technique for an actual story. The Princess Bride would not have been compelling if the movie actually showed Westley learning each of the fencing techniques he refers to in his duel with Inigo. An actual character development arc would be something like this: > In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.... They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct... [cue montage] ... [cue Yoda lecture] ... Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    > Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]

Ensorceled 3y ago

But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. I became very good with both a rifle and pistol pretty much on my own. It took years of training with masters of the craft to become proficient as a martial artist.

capableweb 3y ago
We're talking about wizards and stuff here, I don't think "realism" is as a hard constraint as you think. And surely someone with real combat experience would have less chance of dying in combat compared to someone (like you) who have none nor have been trained by someone who have real combat experience. Is it really that hard to imagine that one person with a gun could be more skilled because of training, knowledge and experience, than another person with a gun?
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Oh my god is that true. My son returned from Iraq mid-tour on a break. His younger brother had an airsoft game (stay with me) going on, after dark, with a dozen friends. They'd build an airsoft tower (small building, windows and a rooftop vantage) and were playing capture the tower. He chatted, loaded an airsoft rifle, and we walked down the lane to the field. As he talked to me he was casting his gaze around, raising his rifle occasionally, firing off a shot. We just walked to the tower, no attempt at concealment, no special gear. By the time we'd gotten there everybody was reloading at the reload station. He'd hit everybody, in the dark, in the grass or in the tower. Proceeded to reorganize them into squads and play for an hour or two. Had a blast that night, lots of scenarios, everybody got to play a role. Anyway yes, training makes all the difference. Holding the weapon, pointing it are the basics they teach the first day.
  - hnbear 3y ago
    Yes. Training is amazing. This whole “guns are average” argument completely ignores the huge range of gun-toting specialists from regular army grunt up to SpecOps, with side specialists like snipers. Given how many sniper movies there are, we’re not suffering from “guns are boring and ruin stories”. Similar story playing paintball. I went for my younger brothers birthday one time. A 3 person team of soldiers showed up. They moved across the maps as an obvious unit, covered each others angles, one reloading at a time, excellent aim. Trounced everyone. Three of them could have taken on dozens of civilians at once.
tivert 3y ago
> But that's the thing ... that isn't realistic and, hence, not compelling story. Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. If it's not compelling it's only because the OP's precis went into far too much detail about actual technique for an actual story. The Princess Bride would not have been compelling if the movie actually showed Westley learning each of the fencing techniques he refers to in his duel with Inigo. An actual character development arc would be something like this: > In the beginning, character has zero skills, they miss shots and not able to succeed in any battles.... They learn how to "quick draw" in order to shot by instinct... [cue montage] ... [cue Yoda lecture] ... Crucially, the character learns that patience, strategy, and emotional control is the most important, just like a wizard would.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]