ax0n
First Post
Hi Klintus,
I was the perpetrator mainly responsible for the rules on Plane Descriptions (although many others on the team are also guilty of aiding ). First, I'd like to welcome you to our forums. We're always on the lookout for feedback and comments, especially those as intelligent and insightful as yours. Keep 'em coming.
The Plane Descriptions play hard and fast with any known rules of geometry, mathematics and physics, mainly to simplify and expediate the rules and maximise fun . This is especially true of 'planar borders' - the rules for which are still heavily in development (see other threads on our board). In the later versions (which are still in development) the rules make no statements about whether a plane is bounded or unbounded. This will be determined in future versions by whether or not a plane has planar borders, and their number and type.
If you don't like what you see you're more than welcome to get involved . We can us all the help we can get. I can email you the latest version, if you would like?
My explanation for the misuse of these terms is that I needed to come up with a series of terms for the various sizes of planes. If you think about it, its actually very hard to come up with variant terms for 'plane'. I use 'dimension' in the science-fiction sense of the word, where it is often used to describe parallel or alternative universes. Thinking about it, we could change the term 'dimension' to 'universe'?
As for 'space', in version 1.2 of our rules, a space is redefined to be a 'solar-system' size plane, for Spelljammer style Material Planes and so forth.
Also the 'finite' and 'infinite', 'bound' and 'unbounded' definitions of planes are MotP stuff and are unfortunately legally unsound for us to use.
Finally, is there anything you liked about our rules for Plane Descriptions?
I was the perpetrator mainly responsible for the rules on Plane Descriptions (although many others on the team are also guilty of aiding ). First, I'd like to welcome you to our forums. We're always on the lookout for feedback and comments, especially those as intelligent and insightful as yours. Keep 'em coming.
The Plane Descriptions play hard and fast with any known rules of geometry, mathematics and physics, mainly to simplify and expediate the rules and maximise fun . This is especially true of 'planar borders' - the rules for which are still heavily in development (see other threads on our board). In the later versions (which are still in development) the rules make no statements about whether a plane is bounded or unbounded. This will be determined in future versions by whether or not a plane has planar borders, and their number and type.
If you don't like what you see you're more than welcome to get involved . We can us all the help we can get. I can email you the latest version, if you would like?
Please, please don't get stuck on our terminology. The words are just there as placeholders for concepts are are, fundamentally, OOC terms used to categorise planes and have no other function beyond that.I mean if you redefine the word dimension to mean: an infinite plane that has no beginning and no end. Then all of a sudden simple common sense statements like "the world in which I live has 3 dimensions" become nonsensical, because the world in which I live does not have "3 infinite planes that have no beginning and no end".
My explanation for the misuse of these terms is that I needed to come up with a series of terms for the various sizes of planes. If you think about it, its actually very hard to come up with variant terms for 'plane'. I use 'dimension' in the science-fiction sense of the word, where it is often used to describe parallel or alternative universes. Thinking about it, we could change the term 'dimension' to 'universe'?
As for 'space', in version 1.2 of our rules, a space is redefined to be a 'solar-system' size plane, for Spelljammer style Material Planes and so forth.
The size categories are used to define various, standard plane sizes. Hypothetically, they could be used as measures of the relative power of each plane, or to determine the number of Planar Borders each plane has. I, myself, have never been quite happy with them so I'm open to suggestions.the terminology the document uses instead: dimension, space, world and realm confuses the stuffing out of me. I understand what world and realm mean of course, but in that respect ,I don't understand why there needs to be special terminology for different sizes of finite planes.
Also the 'finite' and 'infinite', 'bound' and 'unbounded' definitions of planes are MotP stuff and are unfortunately legally unsound for us to use.
Finally, is there anything you liked about our rules for Plane Descriptions?
Last edited: