MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[lio45]

But if MiTD was The Dark One, why would he try to actively impede their search for the final gate? Redcloak is trying to find the gate FOR The Dark One, according to The Dark One's own plan and orders.

Also, and in addition to the argument that The Dark One is something Rich made up for the story, there's the fact that Redcloak would NEVER have the attitude he has if MitD had been connected with his deity -- he's always being super disrespectful, rude and mean to MitD.

[Saint-Just]

Some people here kept bringing up "young female Sean Connery" but something broadly similar did happen in reality

The creative team behind Vysotsky. Thank You For Being Alive did cast Sergey Bezrukov as Vladimir Vysotsky despite them looking nothing alike AND Bezrukov was wearing a silicone mask and heavy makeup for the role and had a different actor speaking his lines AND the creative team made it a guessing game by not crediting any actor officially for Vysotsky's role and completely stonewalling questions about who is playing Vysotsky even after the release (people were obviously interested who was chosen to play such a significant cultural icon) AND threw a huge red herring by having Bezrukov-recognizable-as-himself play an unimportant episodic role of a different character as well, and even having masked-Bezrukov-Vysotsky and recognizable-Bezrukov-episodic-charcter in the same shot.

So sometimes truth is weirder than what we can imagine

[Elanfanforlife]

Some people here kept bringing up "young female Sean Connery" but something broadly similar did happen in reality

The creative team behind Vysotsky. Thank You For Being Alive did cast Sergey Bezrukov as Vladimir Vysotsky despite them looking nothing alike AND Bezrukov was wearing a silicone mask and heavy makeup for the role and had a different actor speaking his lines AND the creative team made it a guessing game by not crediting any actor officially for Vysotsky's role and completely stonewalling questions about who is playing Vysotsky even after the release (people were obviously interested who was chosen to play such a significant cultural icon) AND threw a huge red herring by having Bezrukov-recognizable-as-himself play an unimportant episodic role of a different character as well, and even having masked-Bezrukov-Vysotsky and recognizable-Bezrukov-episodic-charcter in the same shot.

So sometimes truth is weirder than what we can imagine

I think you replied to the wrong thread.

[b_jonas]

I think you replied to the wrong thread.

No they didn't. This is about how the Giant might be trying to trick us by making the MitD secretly the same as another character that we know, such as The Dark One, Redcloak's Niece, Vaarsuvius, Serini etc.

Nokob: about your proposal, I'd like to know how the Monster under the bed could hit Miko and her horse through the tower wall.

[Tubercular Ox]

Nokob: about your proposal, I'd like to know how the Monster under the bed could hit Miko and her horse through the tower wall.

Maybe it can't but Rich wanted to be mysterious and ambiguous.

[Kish]

"Maybe Rich wanted to be mysterious and ambiguous, so he had the creature do something that he couldn't do" isn't a blade that cuts both ways, so much as a blade that cuts in every conceivable direction until this thread is left as: "He's whatever you want him to be. Rule of cool, LOL!"

[Precure]

I think you replied to the wrong thread.

I think they replied to the wrong forum.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's a reference to this post.

[Metastachydium]

Some people here kept bringing up "young female Sean Connery" but something broadly similar did happen in reality

The creative team behind Vysotsky. Thank You For Being Alive did cast Sergey Bezrukov as Vladimir Vysotsky despite them looking nothing alike AND Bezrukov was wearing a silicone mask and heavy makeup for the role and had a different actor speaking his lines AND the creative team made it a guessing game by not crediting any actor officially for Vysotsky's role and completely stonewalling questions about who is playing Vysotsky even after the release (people were obviously interested who was chosen to play such a significant cultural icon) AND threw a huge red herring by having Bezrukov-recognizable-as-himself play an unimportant episodic role of a different character as well, and even having masked-Bezrukov-Vysotsky and recognizable-Bezrukov-episodic-charcter in the same shot.

So sometimes truth is weirder than what we can imagine

No they didn't. This is about how the Giant might be trying to trick us by making the MitD secretly the same as another character that we know, such as The Dark One, Redcloak's Niece, Vaarsuvius, Serini etc.

I think they replied to the wrong forum.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's a reference to this post.

And elsewhere, yes. But while kinda funny indeed, I'd file the Vysotsky thing under trolling – unless we all just want to go home and conclude that nothing in this thread will ever matter.

[Crusher]

...isn't a blade that cuts both ways, so much as a blade that cuts in every conceivable direction

So, it'd be an omniblade! Like a club or mace, just sharp.

[Metastachydium]

So, it'd be an omniblade! Like a club or mace, just sharp.

You mean like a macahuitl with many more blades all around the club, or… More like perfect sphere, but sharp? [Rolls a Sanity check.]

[Tubercular Ox]

Sword-chucks. An extra sharp mace would be far too safe to wield for the metaphor.

[Crusher]

More like perfect sphere, but sharp? [Rolls a Sanity check.]

Exactly!

Its kind of a funny thing in the LARPing world, explaining weapon rules to people.

New person: "Ok, it's got a rounded head, so its a club? Could I grab it by the striking surface?"

Me: "No. If it was a club, sure, but its an omniblade. Its sharp all the way around. You'd lose the limb."

New Person: "How it is sharp all the way around? How can you tell the difference?"

Me: "They're *all* omniblades. Magic?"

[Nokob]

Nokob: about your proposal, I'd like to know how the Monster under the bed could hit Miko and her horse through the tower wall.

My thought there is that as a conceptual monster, his abilities are mostly only limited by imagination (perhaps quite literally). Alternatively (or perhaps as part of that), he's much more powerful when you can't see him.

[Kish]

I fear that sounds like it falls on the wrong side of the "not something Rich made up" line to me.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I fear that sounds like it falls on the wrong side of the "not something Rich made up" line to me.

Agreed. Especially since monster under the bed are not traditionally known for their sheer strength, so this one that can punch horses through walls would definitely be Rich's creation.

GW

[Saint-Just]

On a more serious note I would like to know - does anybody here in the thread thinks that any of the proposed alternatives (but probably a Protean) is more than 50% likely? That is, you would be more comfortable betting on Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean) than betting on "Anything but Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean), including things nobody ever proposed"?

[Nokob]

I fear that sounds like it falls on the wrong side of the "not something Rich made up" line to me.

He definitely didn't make up the monster under the bed as a concept. And using that concept as a concrete monster necessarily implies fleshing it out a bit, making up details.

It is possible to guess.
That is, it isn't something I just made up for the story. It wouldn't be any fun for the answer to a mystery to be something I invented just for one purpose, would it? I won't finally throw back the darkness and have someone say, "Look! It was a therblewurkersaurus the entire time!" or some other made-up monster.

To me, this does not sound like "I didn't make up any aspect of this creature", but rather "this is something you can find or recognize; someone could reasonably say 'it's an X' and be right".

If anything, you could argue that the "fine line" part of the quote is an argument for this, since it blurs the line if he took a well-known monster and "D&D-ified" it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To me, this does not sound like "I didn't make up any aspect of this creature", but rather "this is something you can find or recognize; someone could reasonably say 'it's an X' and be right".

Indeed, and "monster under the bed" cannot reasonably be said to be something that can punch horses through walls. That is just not a characteristic a monster under the bed is associated with, and thus I don't recognize one in MitD.

If anything, you could argue that the "fine line" part of the quote is an argument for this, since it blurs the line if he took a well-known monster and "D&D-ified" it.

No you couldn't, because the fine line is the delineation between "monster made up by other people" and "monster made up by Rich Burlew". Rich acknowledges that all fantasy creatures are made up, and that drawing a line between the ones other people have made up and the ones he himself has made up is a fine line, but he chooses to draw that line nonetheless. Which is to say, taking a creature known for hiding and scaring and lurking and turning it into a powerhouse capable of punching horses through walls clearly crosses that line. That's no "D&D-fying it". That would be giving it stats explaining how it can hide successfully under bed and jump out and scare small children. But adding 40 strength to it is definitely crossing the line into Rich creation, AFAIC. So is, for that matter, the escape scene; a monster under the bed lurks and sneaks into bedrooms and hides under beds. It has no need nor reason to be capable of teleportation.

Grey Wolf

[Nokob]

That would be giving it stats explaining how it can hide successfully under bed and jump out and scare small children.

Ah, I think this is where we're seeing it differently; you're thinking of a monster that would give rise to stories of a monster under the bed by scaring children, while I'm thinking of the imaginary monster that children are afraid of made a reality.

The way I see it, if you try to fight the monster under the bed head-on, it's probably not going well for you (though to be fair, I'm more inclined to think the results would be "dragged under the bed and devoured" more so than "hit through a wall". But we already know the MitD isn't particularly big on eating people, even if Xykon would like him to be, reasonably or not)

[halfeye]

On a more serious note I would like to know - does anybody here in the thread thinks that any of the proposed alternatives (but probably a Protean) is more than 50% likely? That is, you would be more comfortable betting on Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean) than betting on "Anything but Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean), including things nobody ever proposed"?

The protean has a lot of support, I'm not one of those people, I would estimate "something as yet unknown (quite probably something mentioned already, but I have no clue which particular one)" as over 50% of the probability.

[Ruck]

On a more serious note I would like to know - does anybody here in the thread thinks that any of the proposed alternatives (but probably a Protean) is more than 50% likely? That is, you would be more comfortable betting on Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean) than betting on "Anything but Therburwerklasaurus (but probably a Protean), including things nobody ever proposed"?

I'm not sure I really follow the question. But if I do... My estimates for likelihood of a creature are with the caveat "assuming it's something we've found," but this thread has been going on so long, and so much work and research has been done into the topic, that I feel it's very likely there are few to no stones unturned in the hunt.

So I think it's likely something already been proposed, and I think the Protean is very likely the answer given that. But I have no real way of knowing how many creatures have been left undiscovered or not proposed. I just think that number, limited to creatures that even reasonably fit the criteria to make the short list, has to be vanishingly small at this point.

[Saint-Just]

I'm not sure I really follow the question. But if I do... My estimates for likelihood of a creature are with the caveat "assuming it's something we've found," but this thread has been going on so long, and so much work and research has been done into the topic, that I feel it's very likely there are few to no stones unturned in the hunt.

So I think it's likely something already been proposed, and I think the Protean is very likely the answer given that. But I have no real way of knowing how many creatures have been left undiscovered or not proposed. I just think that number, limited to creatures that even reasonably fit the criteria to make the short list, has to be vanishingly small at this point.

As other has noted here this thread is not really a vote but it is a kind of a bet. So if you were to make a bet would you be more confident betting on "Protean" or "literally anything but a Protean" - assuming your payout is equal in any case

In other words: consensus has favoured Protean over other proposed alternatives, but what is your estimate of absolute probability of Protean being true rather than relative probability?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As other has noted here this thread is not really a vote but it is a kind of a bet. So if you were to make a bet would you be more confident betting on "Protean" or "literally anything but a Protean" - assuming your payout is equal in any case

In other words: consensus has favoured Protean over other proposed alternatives, but what is your estimate of absolute probability of Protean being true rather than relative probability?

I'd guesstimate the protean to maybe have an a priori 20% chance with the rest of the proposals in the thread adding together to the other 80% (but none of the others being higher than 20% individually. Or heck, even 10%). But the unexplored, unsuggested pool of candidates remains effectively infinite, so I cannot possibly include it in any off the cuff assertion of chance. No matter how long this thread goes, I still believe that there might be some obscure source Rich had access to that no-one has found yet with the perfect candidate, but I could not even start to quantify the chance of that.

The thing about that, though, is that the a priori chances is in fact meaningless in this context. MitD isn't going to be decided by putting weighted votes in an urn and pulling out one at random. The actual, current chance before the reveal is exactly 0 for every candidate with maybe one exception, and 1 for exactly one species, which may or may not be a suggestion in this thread.

---

Ah, I think this is where we're seeing it differently; you're thinking of a monster that would give rise to stories of a monster under the bed by scaring children, while I'm thinking of the imaginary monster that children are afraid of made a reality.

The way I see it, if you try to fight the monster under the bed head-on, it's probably not going well for you (though to be fair, I'm more inclined to think the results would be "dragged under the bed and devoured" more so than "hit through a wall". But we already know the MitD isn't particularly big on eating people, even if Xykon would like him to be, reasonably or not)

And I'm telling you that would be a Rich creation, bearing no resemblance to anything I'd recognize as the prototypical monster under the bed.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

As other has noted here this thread is not really a vote but it is a kind of a bet. So if you were to make a bet would you be more confident betting on "Protean" or "literally anything but a Protean" - assuming your payout is equal in any case

So the Monty Hall problem is that you have three doors, there is a prize behind one of the doors, and the host knows which door the prize is behind (this final part is vital). You choose a door, the host removes one of the other doors and asks if you want to stay with your choice or switch. Statistically, it's better to switch. I've had a small amount of classmates and friends have difficulty with this, and my go-to was to reframe it as a billion doors. You pick one, the host (who knows which door has the prize) opens all the other doors except one, do you think you picked the right door or do you think the host did?

Anyway. The host in this situation is notably silent and is not helping by opening any doors for us. But we still have the metaphorical billion doors. Do i like the Protean? Absolutely. Do I like Monty Hall more? Yep.

Ah, I think this is where we're seeing it differently; you're thinking of a monster that would give rise to stories of a monster under the bed by scaring children, while I'm thinking of the imaginary monster that children are afraid of made a reality.

The way I see it, if you try to fight the monster under the bed head-on, it's probably not going well for you (though to be fair, I'm more inclined to think the results would be "dragged under the bed and devoured" more so than "hit through a wall". But we already know the MitD isn't particularly big on eating people, even if Xykon would like him to be, reasonably or not)

Question: a monster under the bed actually fits what the stereotypical big game hunters say in SoD pretty well, except for "one of these". How do you propose they recognized it as a monster under the bed?

[Keltest]

Clearly the shadow they found the MITD in, and placed their trap in, was caused by an enormous bed just off panel.

[Gurgeh]

I am in the "none of the above" camp, but the Protean probably has the best case made for it of the candidates in the thread.

[Saint-Just]

The thing about that, though, is that the a priori chances is in fact meaningless in this context. MitD isn't going to be decided by putting weighted votes in an urn and pulling out one at random. The actual, current chance before the reveal is exactly 0 for every candidate with maybe one exception, and 1 for exactly one species, which may or may not be a suggestion in this thread.
Grey Wolf

I respectfully disagree that probability is meaningless when we talk about set-in-stone-but-unknown information. Thank you for indulging my curiousity.

So the Monty Hall problem is that you have three doors, there is a prize behind one of the doors, and the host knows which door the prize is behind (this final part is vital). You choose a door, the host removes one of the other doors and asks if you want to stay with your choice or switch. Statistically, it's better to switch. I've had a small amount of classmates and friends have difficulty with this, and my go-to was to reframe it as a billion doors. You pick one, the host (who knows which door has the prize) opens all the other doors except one, do you think you picked the right door or do you think the host did?

Anyway. The host in this situation is notably silent and is not helping by opening any doors for us. But we still have the metaphorical billion doors. Do i like the Protean? Absolutely. Do I like Monty Hall more? Yep.

I propose a challenger for the Potted Plant: Monty Haul Campaign character. They have magic items that allow them to do anything, BGHs would be surprised they condescend to speak to them, and the view of somebody burdened by that much bling is disturbing and yet beautiful

I am in the "none of the above" camp, but the Protean probably has the best case made for it of the candidates in the thread.

Is your screenname from The Player of Games?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I respectfully disagree that probability is meaningless when we talk about set-in-stone-but-unknown information. Thank you for indulging my curiousity.

I am aware my position on this topic is an outlier, which is why I did my best to give you guesstimates regardless. Hopefully they addressed at least somewhat your curiosity. I appreciate that I didn't even come close to answering half the question (involving the whole probability space), but I honestly don't think probabilities mean much when dealing with quasi-infinite search spaces. As far as I understand it, the probability of the individual becomes infinitesimal, as does any discrete, finite subgroup, even if the infinite sum adds up to 1.

GW

[Nokob]

And I'm telling you that would be a Rich creation, bearing no resemblance to anything I'd recognize as the prototypical monster under the bed.

You're saying that knocking Miko & her horse through the wall is not something you could imagine a manifestation of childhood fears of a monster under the bed doing?

I suppose that's fair; different people are going to have different conceptions of "the monster under the bed". All I can say is that it's believable to me, particularly as a simple indicator of "this is a powerful monster (indeed, absurdly so)".

Question: a monster under the bed actually fits what the stereotypical big game hunters say in SoD pretty well, except for "one of these". How do you propose they recognized it as a monster under the bed?

"One of these" is definitely a hurdle for this suggestion. Possibly there are other, similar monsters (like a monster in the closet) that they've encountered before, and they look similar?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're saying that knocking Miko & her horse through the wall is not something you could imagine a manifestation of childhood fears of a monster under the bed doing?

Yes. But more broadly, barely anything MitD is or does fits it. Not the desire to leave the darkness. Not the dislike of eating small children. Not the discomfort at being looked at. And like I said already, not the outsized strength of teleportation powers. Like, the whole thing is so diverged from any mental image of a monster under the bed that it's just not something I see fitting at all. With so many substantial changes it becomes a Rich creation that just happens to share a name with a different monster - think boggart from Harry Potter vs original fairytale boggart. Or heck, LotR elf vs fairytale elf.

Grey Wolf