Housellama wrote:Yes, Wanda's an uninformed narrator but speaking from a meta-plot point of view, it wouldn't make sense for Rob to not tell us the truth. The exception to this is if the specific details are plot relevant down the road. He knows that the forums take great joy in tearing his work apart and obsessing over details. Why wouldn't he give us the correct info? Chekov's Gun aside, either he's just handwaving it (which, given the importance of Fate and Predictamancy in the story would be rather dumb and would not fit with Rob's track record of incredibly thoughtful design) or he's telling us how it works. Yeah, Wanda may not be the most knowledgeable person but now Delphie has no reason to lie to her (about that at least) and Rob has no reason (again, future plot points aside) to not give us at least a semi-accurate description. Especially considering this is Predictamancy.
So far, Rob's definitely not an author to just feed us boop that doesn't fit in the story or world without a reason. He knows his audience and he knows his story.
I would disagree a bit again
. I see the theme of fate vs free will being a central core to where the main story is going, so I don't think he is going to show us perfectly how fate works in this story, when its something we have to learn there. If this was a stand alone, I could see your point... But I think the meta-gaming is such that he wants to give us hints right now, to supplement what he will do later, but not spoil what will be a central part of the main story.
0beron wrote:I hate to play devil's advocate and throw a wrench in the proposed explanation, but we have seen both from meta-plot and Wanda's own perspective that Fate CAN be meddled with (if only in the short term, it always gets it's way in the end), which means the future is not necessarily set in stone and Predictamancy CAN produce a flawed image even a few seconds in the future. Even with a question like "will that unit be hit by a spell in the next 2 seconds?" hasn't been shown to be immune to error. We've just seen Delphi "play it safe" and not risk challenging a prediction.
i think meddling with Fate is generally a pretty big thing to have accomplished. Playing the metagame again, its a huge element of the main story in my mind; I don't see Fate being casually defied in an everyday battle fitting with a lot of previous themes. If we had a carnymancer or something similar in the battle would be enough to cloud fate, as that is kinda what they seem to do (from our brief brush with them), but I think the example of the Jetstone battle is a good one; Marie knows its an important turn, and she can't see beyond it and has no idea what will happen. The future isn't firm, so she just can't see it; she doesn't see things that are going to be false later.
My current working theory is that predictamancy functions by taking advantage of relative time in Erfworld to let the mind/senses of the predictamancer wander a bit forward; the closer to their base point, the better control they have over seeing what they want to, and understanding what they see. The farther afield, the harder it gets. So I am going to fight the idea of any prediction being false pretty hard