6 Ways to Make SciFi and Fantasy Weapons More Believable

Hi, Mikaelra.
I have helped you to make your link live.

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com...t m_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

First line of the article:

Ever read a fantasy book or watched a science fiction movie and struggled to suspend your disbelief due to the total lack of reality in some make believe weapons?

Click to expand...

And my answer is, "Nope. Never. C'mon, some of these people fight with lightsabers and magic wands and it's awesome."

This is why they tell you to never start a query letter with a rhetorical question. It's too easy for the reader's first reaction be, "No."

jjdebenedictis said:

First line of the article:
And my answer is, "Nope. Never. C'mon, some of these people fight with lightsabers and magic wands and it's awesome."

Click to expand...

+1

The article has some decent points - particularly the unwieldy bizarre superweapon encrusted in impractical doodads - but the attitude of that opening line just seems wrong for a sci-fi/fantasy (especially fantasy) audience. We're reading this stuff to suspend disbelief. Keep it in-world consistent, keep me sufficiently entertained, and I'll totally buy your cybernetic laser-ferret bazooka with the bayonet and snap-on corkscrew. (Frankly, I'm more apt to nitpick impracticality in fantasy art than in fantasy stories. In art, I can see that it's just plain ridiculous for a puny elf/hobbit to swing a gargantuan quintuple-bladed crystalline ubersword, while in writing I might let the author handwave it if the story and the world are sufficiently cool. Nitpicking a weapon in a story usually means I'm dissatisfied with the story itself, rather than the weapons alone. But that's just me...)

Hmm, while the article is interesting, I'm guessing I don't read the same kind of SF and fantasy as the author does or something. Aside from computer game fantasy, which obviously has this incentive to be creating an endless variety of visually cool weapons that are increasingly powerful as the game progresses, most of the fantasy I read has swords, bows, axes, spears, crossbows, knives, or gunpowder weapons if it's in a more recent time period. There may be wands, magical staves, or enchanted weapons, but it's pretty short on bizarre and highly specialized weapons.

Likewise, with SF, there are various kinds of "laser" or "disruptors" or "blasters" that are similar to modern pistols and rifles, and of course weapons mounted on ships. Actually, if anything makes me suspend disbelief it's the fact that they have this technology to make futuristic guns that don't seem all that more deadly or accurate (or better at non-lethally subduing enemies) than what we have now.

A couple of nits:

Instead of creating a crossbow that fires arrows and bombs and uses a backup pistol embedded in the design, stick to a dedicated weapon that can do a single thing well. Give the character a separate backup pistol instead of building it into the crossbow.

Click to expand...

Do any SF or F authors do this, except in video games? I haven't read any.

Why would a character carry both a crossbow and a firearm? If gunpowder is available in the setting, why rely on outdated technology?

Click to expand...

Because the use of those technologies actually did overlap for quite a long time in history. Early firearms were an improvement in some ways, but it took a while to perfect the technology to the point where they were always preferable (and easier to use) to crossbows and melee weapons.

Ever read a fantasy book or watched a science fiction movie and struggled to suspend your disbelief due to the total lack of reality in some make believe weapons? Here’s advice for people writing this stuff on how to get guns and lasers and bow and wands right.

Click to expand...

Fantasy is not the same as science fiction. Their weapons can diverge from our modern examples for completely different reasons. Trying to mash the two together in one article fails.

I agree that fantasy authors have no excuse for getting medieval and other historical weapons so consistently wrong, as there exists a vast body of historical knowledge to draw from and enthusiastic recreators with firsthand experience of at least mock-combats. The article could have focused on things fantasy authors usually get wrong: swords are lightweight and as intuitive as knives, horses are nothing but cars on hooves, crossbows aim and reload just like guns, etc. but he doesn't go into that detail.

Advising science fiction writers to go down to REI and hold a bow-and-arrow isn't helpful either: he doesn't even address a basic question, like will there ever be a directed energy weapon accurate enough, cost effective enough, and portable enough to compare with the mass throwers we have today?

There's some good advice here sure, but it's not the end-all and be-all of speculative fiction weapon articles. The field remains wide open.

Yes, yes I would.

jjdebenedictis said:

First line of the article:
And my answer is, "Nope. Never. C'mon, some of these people fight with lightsabers and magic wands and it's awesome."

This is why they tell you to never start a query letter with a rhetorical question. It's too easy for the reader's first reaction be, "No."

Click to expand...

In fact, no is my default response to such a question.

I think this is still one of the better articles on medieval European swords.

But with fantasy, there's no reason we have to confine ourselves to that (or any) era, nor do we only have to focus on swords. As others have pointed out in other threads, medieval warfare didn't even revolve around swords.

I agree that fantasy and SF have different issues, since writers are more likely to invent fanciful weapons that need to apply some known principle of physics for SF. With fantasy, they're more likely to portray weapons that resemble actual historical ones, but they can invoke magic to create something that doesn't follow known rules (I personally give magical items and weapons limitations and costs, though).

And yes, I had to laugh at the starting with a rhetorical question thing. People are just too smartass for that to ever be a good idea.

Roxxsmom said:

I think this is still one of the better articles on medieval European swords.

Click to expand...

Fascinating. *saves*

jjdebenedictis said:

First line of the article:
And my answer is, "Nope. Never. C'mon, some of these people fight with lightsabers and magic wands and it's awesome."

This is why they tell you to never start a query letter with a rhetorical question. It's too easy for the reader's first reaction be, "No."

Click to expand...

Indeed.

In fact, I'd say most sci-fi and fantasy weapons are too unimaginative and not weird and crazy enough.

jjdebenedictis said:

This is why they tell you to never start a query letter with a rhetorical question. It's too easy for the reader's first reaction be, "No."

Click to expand...

They also say never to put a rhetorical question in a news or feature lede either.

The guy might know a lot about how to use weapons in real life. He has a bit to learn as far as fiction goes.

kuwisdelu said:

Indeed.

In fact, I'd say most sci-fi and fantasy weapons are too unimaginative and not weird and crazy enough.

Click to expand...

I confess I've spent more time trying to come up with bizarre and innovative eating utensils than I have fancy weapons. At some point, it occurred to me that there have to be different options besides A: European style cutlery, or B. Chopsticks.

Hmm, maybe dining tongs and skewers that have spring-loaded darts.

Yes, that article got me into nit-picking mode too. It has some decent points, but I found myself quibbling with it on an historical point of view, never mind the naivete about what would or wouldn't work in fiction.

1. Simplicity vs utility

Sometimes. And sometimes not. Yes, there is a lot to be said for a reliable weapon, which generally points to a simple weapon. But a fighter needs to do a lot more than just kill. He/she also needs to survive in a hostile environment which means that some of his/her equipment will be slanted towards utility instead of simplicity. How many different things can a mobile phone do, hmm?

Weapons will also be adjusted respond to likely adversaries or problems. The infantry of WW2 needed specialist equipment to deal with the threat from tanks. Modern infantry units need to be able to respond to IEDs.

2. Keep technology consistent

Well, yes and no. Just about every soldier since the dawn of time has carried something like a knife in his/her gear. When your fancy tech stops working it's good to know that you have a standby weapon which doesn't run on batteries. A weapon which was invented in the stone age. And that's before we get into ceremonial gear.

Depending on the setting we might also get combatants with different levels of tech. At the battle of the Little Big Horn there were apparently 45 different firearms types, not to mention the other weapons.

3. Define the weapon and stick to it

Again, yes and no. We certainly want to avoid deux ex machina moments when a weapon magically sprouts a new function that we have never seen before. But soldiers in the field will adapt a weapon to do jobs that its inventor never intended.


4. Don't forget the ammo

Fair point, but I would go a stage further. Don't forget that ranged weapons were not as popular in the past as they are now particular for lone warriors. The article is right to point out the need for ammo, but it seems to fall into a different trap of assuming that everyone will have access to ranged weapons.

5. Match the weapon to its user

Sometimes. And sometimes someone uses a weapon because it is the only thing they can lay their hands on. The idea of perfectly matching weapons to users is a luxury that won't always be available. We can't all just pop into the local sporting goods store.

6. Do IRL research at a sporting goods store

Sigh. If you want to model your weapons on those that can be found in a sporting goods store.


All in all, some interesting points but it leaves me grateful that we have good SFF writers with the imagination and knowledge to go beyond simplistic stuff like this.

RichardGarfinkle said:

My biggest problem with this article is that it's ahistorical. People actually made tricked out weapons. There were rapiers and bucklers with single shot pistols in them. There were weapons tthat could fire multiple kinds of ammo (catapults, ballistas and cannon among them). People do not only make the most practical of weapons, they innovate and experiment.

Click to expand...

I would completely have to agree with this. I have seen weapons that most people would never have believed could have existed, yet historically actually did. The ancient Chinese were notorious for this. I have seen a crossbow that holds multiple bolts and reloads like a shotgun, and a huge box that fired hundreds of arrows at once with just a single person using it. One that I recall to be the most amusing was a ballista on a wagon that was pulled by a horse. As the horse ran, it pulled back the string, and once it was fully pulled it fired, only to drop another bolt into place and repeat the process. The fact that they got the horses to run at the enemy without a driver by lighting their tails on fire only makes the invention that much more bizarre, but it actually happened. few things in fantasy have come close to being as unbelievable as some of the things that actually existed.

kuwisdelu said:

Indeed.

In fact, I'd say most sci-fi and fantasy weapons are too unimaginative and not weird and crazy enough.

Click to expand...

I agree, usually their pretty simple in design in my experience. I can understand that sometimes one might want to avoid
heavily affixing lots of functions and parts to a weapon, simply for practicality. Unless, the fact that has a myriad of functions
is it's point. I think, perhaps, at a larger scale observation, the collective population will probably want practicality over
lots of functions.
However, usually most magical items are rather just normal in design, and perhaps have a magical component,
but with what I've read or I've watched, the items usually are not so adorned that they became impractical. I'd like to see
really far out weapons and armor.

It must be down to what people read fantasy and SF for. Even with stories that are driven to some extent by armed conflict, to me, the weapon isn't really the focus. The thoughts, feelings, and actions of the characters as they go about resolving the conflict are what I care most about, along with the intrigues and relationships and loyalties and motivations.

I tend to get annoyed when writers use a fight scene as a vehicle for presenting odd weapons that make less and less sense the more carefully they're described. Elaborate descriptions of weapons are boring to me. Show me what the character does and what happens as a result. But other people probably find some of the things I like boring in stories.

I'm perfectly happy to read about a character bashing someone's head in with a mace, or stabbing someone through the throat with a rapier without too much description of the weapon itself or the elaborate techniques the character used to wield it.

Roxxsmom said:

It must be down to what people read fantasy and SF for. Even with stories that are driven to some extent by armed conflict, to me, the weapon isn't really the focus. The thoughts, feelings, and actions of the characters as they go about resolving the conflict are what I care most about, along with the intrigues and relationships and loyalties and motivations.

I tend to get annoyed when writers use a fight scene as a vehicle for presenting odd weapons that make less and less sense the more carefully they're described. Elaborate descriptions of weapons are boring to me. Show me what the character does and what happens as a result. But other people probably find some of the things I like boring in stories.

I'm perfectly happy to read about a character bashing someone's head in with a mace, or stabbing someone through the throat with a rapier without too much description of the weapon itself or the elaborate techniques the character used to wield it.

Click to expand...

You make a very good point here. Usually the weapon is nothing more than the tool the character uses, as opposed to the reason he uses such a tool. It is the reason that most often weapons, at least general ones, are only mentioned and not carefully detailed. The odd weapons are an exception to this, but not because of their odd nature directly I wouldn't think. Instead it's because it points to the odd nature of the wielder, and gives insight into that characters thoughts and motivations. It's like someone wearing a funny hat or unusual clothing. It's not the article that is important, but what it says about that character. I would also agree that the only time strange weapons should be used is if there is a real reason for them to exist in the first place. Most weapons were designed in a way that they had a very specific purpose, be they average ones or rare and unusual ones. They are utilitarian in design, to give the wielder the most efficient means to defeat ones opponent. Giving a weapon an unusual characteristic without a purpose behind it rarely works.

kuwisdelu said:

Indeed.

In fact, I'd say most sci-fi and fantasy weapons are too unimaginative and not weird and crazy enough.

Click to expand...

Have you read Iain Banks's Against A Dark Background?
From Wiki: "The eight Lazy Guns were mysterious ancient objects, discovered together a long time before the events of the book. A Lazy Gun is roughly half a metre long, 30 cm wide and 20 cm tall. The Lazy Gun is "light but massy", and weighs three times as much when turned upside down. The Lazy Gun is the only weapon known to display a sense of humour. When fired, some calamity or cataclysm will befall the target on whatever scale is necessary to assure its destruction. The effect is random and in no way limited by its own implausibility, ranging from (for example) an inexplicable wild animal attack in the case of humans to a spontaneous cometary impact in the case of a city. In addition to being susceptible to ordinary damage, tampering with the Guns usually results in a mundane but profoundly powerful explosion that destroys the gun and everything in the vicinity."

JimmyB27 said:

Have you read Iain Banks's Against A Dark Background?
From Wiki: "The eight Lazy Guns were mysterious ancient objects, discovered together a long time before the events of the book. A Lazy Gun is roughly half a metre long, 30 cm wide and 20 cm tall. The Lazy Gun is "light but massy", and weighs three times as much when turned upside down. The Lazy Gun is the only weapon known to display a sense of humour. When fired, some calamity or cataclysm will befall the target on whatever scale is necessary to assure its destruction. The effect is random and in no way limited by its own implausibility, ranging from (for example) an inexplicable wild animal attack in the case of humans to a spontaneous cometary impact in the case of a city. In addition to being susceptible to ordinary damage, tampering with the Guns usually results in a mundane but profoundly powerful explosion that destroys the gun and everything in the vicinity."

Click to expand...

...

Apparently I need to give Iain Banks another try.

I'm hope I'm not sounding mean but I am tired of articles like this. Does everything single thing in SFF need to be hyper-realistic? I understand the need to have consistency in your world and for things to match up but it starts to reach into the of ridiculousness if you nitpick ever little thing. It's fiction for crying out loud not everything needs to match 100% to realistic to be good.