> I had an idea that Escher would be close. Of course,
> I do actually *have* to be able to describe it; I
> don't want to say "it's beyond description" or "it's
> all sort of non-Euclidian you know what I mean?"
No, and this is always tricky. I think we need to get
down to specific examples. How about, for instance:
GM: "Three paths meet here. They're at right-angles to
each other."
Gm: "There's a building ahead of you: four sides, flat
roof. As you get closer, the roof gets steeper, and
you realise it's got five sides. No, six. Seven."
GM: "You're in a corridor, with doors down one side
that are ten feet apart. You inspect each room: each
is thirty feet wide. No, one door per room, no more."
GM: There are three pillars. One is black, the other
is white."
Response to all:
Player: "Huh? What's that look like? Can't imagine
it."
GM: "Nor can your character. It's making your head
hurt trying to see it straight. Minus 1 to all
actions..."
(It now occurs to me that if I had time, descriptions 2 and 3 could be modelled in virtual reality. But I don't.)
Did you ever see the TV version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Borrow some ideas from the Infinite Improbability Drive. Possibly including Trillian's tannoy announcements, but in a hissy accent. Imagine those automated voices telling you what the next tube station is going to be, but in Auld Wyrmish.
Of course, all of this is what you see with your right eye. Your left eye is seeing something different (maybe abstract forms in glowing lights? but geometry that makes sense, sort of like Tron?) And if they have the sense to close their right eyes, life will get easier for both them and you. (If they close *both* eyes, you need to sort out what sense they're using: left ear to hear with, left hand to feel with...)
> You could describe me as human, although appearances
> can be deceptive. We've met at Convulsion and maybe
> even at Conjunction (but my memory isn't that
> good!).
Ah yes, we have, haven't we? Not that I can put a face to the name even now, but I remember thinking "so that's what Matthew looks like".
> One idea would be to describe what can be seen
> outside of the road.
(grin) How about this? If you're stationary and not at a Prescribed Exit, nothing (and then you can only see out of the exit, if that). If you're on the move, the "walls" get gradually more translucent as you speed up: but of course you can only see what's out there in glimpses as it goes past at speed. And what you're seeing is what's really out there but at a random point in time: past, future... Is it real? Is it prediction? If so, will those visions of 6-lane motorways across Dragon Pass come true? Who knows?
Oh yes, use left-eye only and you can't see outside. You're purely in the Wyrms' World then.
> All of this is to make the story telling that much
> more rich - I'm not going for the simulationist
> approach. Thanks for your involvement, this list is
> invaluable for that sort of thing.
Simulation of this would require understanding of quantum mechanics that's way beyond me.
>From what I remember of college multi-dimensional
physics, in the RW we have three physical dimensions
plus time, and to treat Time the same as the rest you
multiply it by i, sqrt(-1). All four are at right
angles to each other. So maybe in Wyrms' World, it's
one of the physical dimensions that has to be
multiplied by i to fit with the rest. Time is a
standard dimension to them, one of the physical ones
is to them as time is to us.
Unless of course it's more complicated than that... as "any fule no", there are 11 dimensions in total, but the extra ones are curled up so we can't see them.
Yeah. Let's stick to narrative!
Powered by hypermail