AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

And I think you are just afraid to venture a guess like I always did for fear that you may be wrong. Like I sometimes was.

Regardless, I fail to see what story relevance destroying all the mystery for you has, and so I'm staying mum.

Well, guessing simply isn't fun. Knowing is. Logical deduction is. Arguing with tangible evidence is.

You create an artificial need to "guess" and be "creative" by withholding relevant information that should be readily apparent. All we're left with is New Age nonsense and no means to verify theories, because the DMs don't know how it works IC.

Guessing is absolutely fun, when guessing is knowing, and knowing comes through logical deduction based on facts you assume that are based on tangible evidence you conjure. That is why I do it. I detect an excruciating irony between your wishes here (to have a purely IC explanation that does not involve my gift of allowing you to cooperatively comprehend it OOC'ly) and your wishes in the thread regarding OOC Recruitment and Advertisement (wherein you argue that the OOC presence must be taken in measure with the IC). I'm not going to make any conclusions based on that, though, because I'd rather go without a conclusion.

I am a DM who knows how it works IC because I had to tackle the questions in order to embark upon a story I was trying to tell. And as I keep saying, I could shove my explanation down your collective throats, but I do not want to because it seems wrong to do so. No matter the amount of thought and consideration I put into an explanation that goes lengths towards creating an explanation that is edifying/intriguing OOC and that offers lectureable, investigatable, experimental, and perhaps even consciousness-altering opportunities IC, an explanation borne out of my desire as a DM to manufacture and cater to what I already explained was what I acknowledge as the majority player's ideal to "have fun" (along with my own personal desire to see you exposed to fringe concepts and thinking and watch the mental sparks fly), it is still fundamentally wrong because in the same moment that I spark creativity I likewise destroy it with solid answers. I devour the brain-child in utero. I put the cart before the horse before the wheel has been invented and while dinosaurs still roam the earth.

Not to mention the fact that the playerbase enjoys being contrary for the sake of being contrary alone, and therefore I have no recourse but to say, "Answer your own damn questions, because never in a million years will my answers ever be good enough for you, nor should they be, if you want the intellectual freedom to interpret reality as you see fit."

So I keep it to myself, and I struggle against all odds to keep it small, to keep it hidden, to keep it relevant only to those for whom it is relevant and allow others to come to what are quite possibly radically contradictory conclusions without stomping around like some mad god and proclaiming I operate the only elevator to heaven, even though that elevator has a multitude of floors that could all be described as heaven.

All I really want to do is scream, but when you try to translate it to written text, it just looks overdramatic and unnecessary.

Actually, what I want is to acknowledge the OOC limitations of the spell and consciously either ignore them or translate them into definite IC observations. I'd prefer to ignore the fact that it's area-specific, but at least some DMs seem to think it's better to go by the mechanics.

You don't need to describe your IC theory to the detail. But I assume you have decided upon certain facts that are undeniably objective and readily apparent, such as the Area of Effect of the spell, whether the effects happen during or after the spell, and what observers see. It is ridicilous to theorize and guess about these things. They're dead obvious to anyone who's ever seen the spell cast.

But we have different approaches: creativity in role-play is your primary interest, I imagine. Personally I'm more interested in systematic world building, which admittedly isn't what the game itself is about. I just find the metalevel more intriguing.

both of your points are valid, as Iron states that he wants solid facts, but Yossarin states that it should be left to imagination.
I think there is a golden road in between of both previously stated things. Isn't that what roleplaying is about?

Well, I think mine is the middle road. I don't want the hows and whys of it explained. I just want clarity on the readily apparent "what".

IronAngel wrote:

Well, I think mine is the middle road. I don't want the hows and whys of it explained. I just want clarity on the readily apparent "what" .

What = "What do we, Players, experience when we get hit by/Use timestop". Aka - Mechanical-Wise?

Theories

A - Players see nothing. Aka -"One moment there's a goblin there, The other it's exploded"
B - Players see something. Aka -"Frozen, They see the mage frie the goblin up with a fireball"

This is what we're talking about, Yea?
'Then me and some others derailed it by involving modern physics" :roll:

Yes, plus what bystanders see if they're not affected by the spell. Do coulds move in the sky? Is it only living beings that are frozen? Can you enter the area without feeling its effects if you missed the moment of casting and ported in during the duration? These are the kinds of questions that really have no room for creativity. It's either or.

* Either we need a DM Rule.
Quick, Efficent, But diminishes RP perspectives and discussions. (Read Yoss Post)

Yossarin wrote:

Guessing is absolutely fun, when guessing is knowing, and knowing comes through logical deduction based on facts you assume that are based on tangible evidence you conjure. That is why I do it. I detect an excruciating irony between your wishes here (to have a purely IC explanation that does not involve my gift of allowing you to cooperatively comprehend it OOC'ly) and your wishes in the thread regarding OOC Recruitment and Advertisement (wherein you argue that the OOC presence must be taken in measure with the IC). I'm not going to make any conclusions based on that, though, because I'd rather go without a conclusion.

I am a DM who knows how it works IC because I had to tackle the questions in order to embark upon a story I was trying to tell. And as I keep saying, I could shove my explanation down your collective throats, but I do not want to because it seems wrong to do so. No matter the amount of thought and consideration I put into an explanation that goes lengths towards creating an explanation that is edifying/intriguing OOC and that offers lectureable, investigatable, experimental, and perhaps even consciousness-altering opportunities IC, an explanation borne out of my desire as a DM to manufacture and cater to what I already explained was what I acknowledge as the majority player's ideal to "have fun" (along with my own personal desire to see you exposed to fringe concepts and thinking and watch the mental sparks fly), it is still fundamentally wrong because in the same moment that I spark creativity I likewise destroy it with solid answers. I devour the brain-child in utero. I put the cart before the horse before the wheel has been invented and while dinosaurs still roam the earth.

Not to mention the fact that the playerbase enjoys being contrary for the sake of being contrary alone, and therefore I have no recourse but to say, "Answer your own damn questions, because never in a million years will my answers ever be good enough for you, nor should they be, if you want the intellectual freedom to interpret reality as you see fit."

So I keep it to myself, and I struggle against all odds to keep it small, to keep it hidden, to keep it relevant only to those for whom it is relevant and allow others to come to what are quite possibly radically contradictory conclusions without stomping around like some mad god and proclaiming I operate the only elevator to heaven, even though that elevator has a multitude of floors that could all be described as heaven.

All I really want to do is scream, but when you try to translate it to written text, it just looks overdramatic and unnecessary.

* Or IC research.
IC research can come off as odd, If one found out that clouds were moving, While the other determined they were not.

* Or Two sets of Viewpoints.

Viewpoint A - The Caster
Viewpoint B - The Affected

Ps - Might have missed something

IronAngel wrote:

[...] it seems like it's localized and affects certain people at an arbitrary range that changes with every casting. It's not a bubble, though, since you can enter the area without suffering the effects. It's more like a wave. And in fact, it does ultimately seem that it's just a mass paralysis, only the paralysis is not physical but temporal.

I'm perfectly happy with this. It's what my characters would experience and observe in game so it's the best foundation for forming theories about it.

If I'd have to expand on its properties I'd add that only living beings are frozen (in time). The spell is saveless and doesn't check for spell resistance.

All of this can be found out in game too because this is what it does mechanically. But then again when it comes to issues like this, I'm a firm WYSIWYG guy. It makes things easier and nothing has to be retconned.

Yossarin wrote:

All I really want to do is scream, but when you try to translate it to written text, it just looks overdramatic and unnecessary.

Sometimes being overdramatic is just as fun as guessing!! Do it!! (But maybe a DM-forum scream. Heh.)

And I think Yossarin has a good point that those who DO have a theory should just explore these theories ICly. Iron, Very_Svensk, etc. I just made my joke because I don't want to make theories about it at all, whether or not my characters have been directly affected by the time-stop-craziness. And I was tired. And it's entirely possible that we're all going to have to start dealing with really stupid ideas about Time Stop because of the encouragement to assume what you want even if it's wrong...

...and I was just trying to save myself some misery.

I admit, I find the experimentation process fun and the answers obtained through it all the more comforting, as opposed to just supposition and presumption.

Plus, should I attempt to put the experimented theory into application, it tends to have a stronger credence (and will likely be more accepted used in a plotline or similar) if it is something that's been researched.

There is of course one time when the experimentation process is (to coin Zero Punctuation) 'Cat in Pants annoying' is when I am suffering from Writer's Block, or it's scientific equivalant thereof.

Thankfully, the character I have primarily involved in experimentation works with others whom don't tend to suffer such at the same time.

Oh, the experimentation process is great, which is why I've been promoting it as much as I can. So long as the DMs agree on what Timestop does, though, because it would suck to have a load of physical data that would contradict itself (repeating an experiment four times yields four insanely different results, for example).

Finding out the answer IC will be fun, so long as there is one OOC.

Yep. The real question here is the experience, not the mechanics (IE the underlying principles behind it). If two wizards cast the same spell and are careful to adhere to the same procedure in doing so, they should get the same result, even if they develop wildly differing theories behind the effected phenomenon.

If Yurell and I both drop a spherical stone of equal mass and size from the same position as the other, the two stones should hit the ground after the same amount of time. Yurell could then assert that the stones fell because of gravity, and I could assert that they fell because they loved the ground and wanted to be reunited with it, and regardless of these completely different explanations, the actual observable results of the experiment would be the same.

So should it be with Timestop.

No, if two wizards cast the same spell with the same procedure they may not get the same result. Why? Because its magic. Magics not meant to be a sure thing that can be logically reasoned to give a logical result. Cause its not logical.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

No, if two wizards cast the same spell with the same procedure they may not get the same result. Why? Because its magic. Magics not meant to be a sure thing that can be logically reasoned to give a logical result. Cause its not logical.

It is logical, though. Magic A is Magic A. I cast fireball, I get 1d6 damage per level capped at 10d6, as will any other mage that casts it non-metamagiced. I cast a summon, I get a summon. Timestop isn't one wizard casts Timestop and gets uberhaste, while another casts the exact same spell with the exact same reagent and stops time everywhere, while the last repeats the procedure and freezes time locally. And of course, the last casts it and the sky turns pink.

"It's magic and therefore it's random" isn't really much of an argument, since it's not random. I don't cast GS and get Magic Missiles.

Oh, you lot want mechanical stuff.

Well now, thats different. Which makes me think you are all arguing about the wrong thing. Wither you see something during timestop or not isn't mechanical, it's IC perspective. In which case my previous arguments apply. However, if your talking mechanical then I think it's quite obvious.

It's none of your buisness xD. It's DM buisness and not player buisness because players don't need to worry about the mechanical stuff, just the IC perspective. If players are worrying about mechanical stuff then your not doing it right.

That may seem a bit of a cop out, but its what I'm thinking. Your all arguing about something you don't have any buisness arguing about. Myself included.

.... we've debated exactly that, Selvec.

So let me get this straight.

You're debating something that literally will have no effect on the actual outcome, and that you have no idea if the DM team is even looking at this time (Prior to Yos post), and your all constantly bringing up arguments and defenses which constantly go off topic into matters already decided. Such as how it works IC and how it's to be percieved?

Thats what I'm gathering as I'm seeing a lot of arguments suggesting it works off physics or real world reactions. Which it's already been decided it doesn't, since it's not an actual real world thing. Since the matter of it working in a mechanical sense already is to be talked about in the future by the DM team exclusively, arguments here have no real basis, and are simply for the sake of hearing our own voices, or rather, reading.

No, we're arguing that there needs to be an OOC answer for us to be able to investigate it IC. We don't need to know what it is, but the DMs do, otherwise how will they tell us the results of our experiments, or give contradictory results?

Okay, so why do you need to argue the OOC answer? Sounds like it's something only the DM's should know.

I agree - the OOC answer should be for DMs only. The OOC discussion about the mechanism was a bit of fun - the mechanism is something that should be discovered entirely IC.

So most of the thread is essentially pointless?

Wonderful, glad we have that cleared up.

Actually, I still wouldn't mind knowing the actual experience of time stop, ie what can be observed. That was the whole point of my stone experiment: the event is readily observable, even if the cause thereof is not.

Very_Svensk wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

Well, I think mine is the middle road. I don't want the hows and whys of it explained. I just want clarity on the readily apparent "what" .

What = "What do we, Players, experience when we get hit by/Use timestop". Aka - Mechanical-Wise?

Theories

A - Players see nothing. Aka -"One moment there's a goblin there, The other it's exploded"
B - Players see something. Aka -"Frozen, They see the mage frie the goblin up with a fireball"

This is what we're talking about, Yea?
'Then me and some others derailed it by involving modern physics" :roll:

The big question stands, What happens inside timestop! And, as we have shouted ourselves tired about - DM's, It's nigh time for you to decide what we see or dont see, Mechanically, as we experience timestop! Dum Dum Dum Duuuuum

It's not "About time" for anything. Stop throwing demands around.

What happens in Time stop?

Things stop.

Stop hounding everyone over one minor comment I made. My god. Three fucking pages.

considering the dm's stance on this one, and since the lore is vague as anything, I would reckon, find out ICly, and if the dm's have a solid amia specific lorewise explaination for it, all is well =)

I think we have established its not something thats easy to know, even oocly, which is bonus. means you would have to seek out the most powerful *expletive* mage in the land to have a shread of a chance of finding out. which makes alot of sense. even if you can cast it, would take time to figure out why and what, the how would be whats on the scroll you learned it from, unless your a sorc, then I guess the how isn't so relevant in every case.

either way its time to leave the dead horse alone xD

My favorite thing about Timestop is it gives Sam a reason to have to bitch about magic. I mean, who the hell wants time stopping around them-- multiple times?! She gets so disoriented and pissed when Timestop is used, and it's awesome.

I suppose in a year or so it'll become normal, though. Hellballs already are.

Fair opinion for Sam to have, because I do believe she has been in the presence of something that would make her not want to even think about time, and probably dislike magicians, period.

What happens during timestop!

Who is online