MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Doug Lampert]

But I would expect the fluff to have been phrased differently if it were absent audible elements. It wouldn't be called a language, IMO, but simply "communication".

So, according to you, written language and computer language and sign language all aren't called languages. What are they called?

A language is something you USE to communicate, it is not communications itself. Written language and written communication do not in fact mean the same thing, I am using a written language to type this but the message itself is a written communication.

A language need not be verbal.

[Mordar]

So, according to you, written language and computer language and sign language all aren't called languages. What are they called?

A language is something you USE to communicate, it is not communications itself. Written language and written communication do not in fact mean the same thing, I am using a written language to type this but the message itself is a written communication.

A language need not be verbal.

Did I say that? I don't think I did, because I don't think that (that written/computer/sign/symbol/Dragonbait's smell projection aren't languages...I expressly and directly am saying right here that I think they *are* languages). See also: Dolphin chirps, whistle and clicks...Science apparently isn't sure yet, but if I were to bet, I'd shade towards it is language.

Ah, I see the triggering point...

It wouldn't be called a language, IMO, but simply "communication".

The unwritten portion there is "... simply "communication" [in a d20/D&D stat block]."

I do believe that D&D (et al) expects either written or audio elements in language when designers include languages in a monster description. If they mean for that creature to communicate through sign, scent, oscillating colors, etc., I believe that will be expressly called out.

- M

[Crusher]

A language need not be verbal.

IMO, this is the key part with Proteans. They're unbridled shapeshifters, right?If two (or more) are trying to communicate, it would almost be a surprise if it was a spoken language because at any given moment one or both might not even have a mouth, capable of making a particular sound. And if two Proteans were from different areas they might not even have commonality in the types of creatures they had encountered and thus would be likely to shift into.

More likely, they'd communicate *via* their shapeshifting. Which is a little weird, but its their defining characteristic and something all of them share at all times. I'd be surprised if their communication *didn't* involve a particular cadence of shape changes or taking on particular kinds of forms. As far as I know, there's no specific description of how it works, but you'd could see how something like turning into 3 different creatures and then 2 a half -second later, followed by something round after a 2 second pause might convey meaning.

If you just sat and watched them for a while you could probably figure out they were communicating in some fashion, but if it was the middle of a fight or a very brief interchange between the proteans you might not even realize it.

[Tubercular Ox]

I feel like the arguments are already too sophisticated. Rich had one opinion or the other and went with it, because he wasn't in contact with people representing the other opinion and so didn't consider it.

[Keltest]

I feel like the arguments are already too sophisticated. Rich had one opinion or the other and went with it, because he wasn't in contact with people representing the other opinion and so didn't consider it.

Unless it's not a Protean at all, in which case he didn't. But also, there's no such thing as an argument being too sophisticated.

[Kish]

I feel like the arguments are already too sophisticated. Rich had one opinion or the other and went with it, because he wasn't in contact with people representing the other opinion and so didn't consider it.

That is a fascinating statement about how people's minds work.

[Tubercular Ox]

But also, there's no such thing as an argument being too sophisticated.

That is a fascinating statement about how people's minds work.

I'm confused. Is the claim here that it's obvious that Rich will always come to the same conclusion as a room full of nerds came to after literal years of arguing with each other?

What happens when the room full of nerds spends years arguing with each other and still can't agree? Does Rich realize that it's going to cause an unresolvable argument and put it in the story anyways?

[Precure]

I don't see why the hunter's reaction would be a con for protean, especially since it's due to a language only proteans can understand, so it makes sense for them to don't know about it.

[Peelee]

What happens when the room full of nerds spends years arguing with each other and still can't agree?

Wizards of the Coast releases a new version of Dungeons and Dragons.

[Kish]

Not all disagreements are created equal.

If one person thinks a given character is incontrovertibly something no one else thinks goes with the evidence at all, that's a pretty total disagreement.

If one person thinks the evidence points to "probably X but could be W, Y or Z," a second person thinks the evidence points to "probably Y but could be W, X or Z," and a third person thinks "probably Z but could be X or Y, W is right out," that's not much of a disagreement. Much relevant factual information is lost in summing it up as "they all disagree."

In the case of the creature in the darkness, the only time it would be a positive thing for everyone to agree "he's definitely a [whatever]" would be if the mystery was at its end. Mystery stories in which an average reader can deduce what the mystery is halfway through are widely panned for that reason.

[Errorname]

What happens when the room full of nerds spends years arguing with each other and still can't agree?

Eventually the twist is revealed and collapses the uncertainty. This is a question with a single correct answer, and eventually we'll find out for certain what it is.

For now, we can only speculate, and hopefully have fun while we do it.

[Tubercular Ox]

Eventually the twist is revealed and collapses the uncertainty. This is a question with a single correct answer, and eventually we'll find out for certain what it is.

Does this mean that a Protean reveal will confirm that Rich thinks the Protean language can't be recognized as language in the same way that someone speaking Foreign IRL can be recognized as speaking a language?

[Errorname]

Does this mean that a Protean reveal will confirm that Rich thinks the Protean language can't be recognized as language in the same way that someone speaking Foreign IRL can be recognized as speaking a language?

It would mean he considered the hunter's reaction a reasonable response to seeing a Protean speak in common, for whatever reason.

[Kish]

It doesn't have to be a reasonable response, just one they could have.

Given that their reaction to "we've caught a sapient being who is asking to be let go" is "whee, money!" I do not think they come across as reasonable people.

[Errorname]

It doesn't have to be a reasonable response, just one they could have.

That is what I meant. I suppose a better word would have been believable.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

IMO, this is the key part with Proteans. They're unbridled shapeshifters, right?If two (or more) are trying to communicate, it would almost be a surprise if it was a spoken language because at any given moment one or both might not even have a mouth, capable of making a particular sound. And if two Proteans were from different areas they might not even have commonality in the types of creatures they had encountered and thus would be likely to shift into.

More likely, they'd communicate *via* their shapeshifting. Which is a little weird, but its their defining characteristic and something all of them share at all times. I'd be surprised if their communication *didn't* involve a particular cadence of shape changes or taking on particular kinds of forms.

The other key thing is that, definitionally, their "language" itself constantly changes. So emitting the smell of slightly rotten tomatoes might mean "good morning" this one time, and the next time it might mean "we attack at dawn". Or nothing at all, and it's a terrible faux-pas. And yet other proteans can tell what was meant. Which makes it really hard to call this a language at all, because, again definitionally, there is no consistency to it. How it could possibly work, I don't know, but I also don't know how a two hundred ton armoured lizard can possibly fly, and yet it does, because the rules say they do, and this is no different from that.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

I feel like the arguments are already too sophisticated. Rich had one opinion or the other and went with it, because he wasn't in contact with people representing the other opinion and so didn't consider it.

That is a fascinating statement about how people's minds work.

I'm confused. Is the claim here that it's obvious that Rich will always come to the same conclusion as a room full of nerds came to after literal years of arguing with each other?

What happens when the room full of nerds spends years arguing with each other and still can't agree? Does Rich realize that it's going to cause an unresolvable argument and put it in the story anyways?

Rich isn't coming to a conclusion. Rich doesn't care if we agree. Rich made a decision 20-ish years ago, and we are trying to figure out what that decision was from the clues he has given us.

That is what I meant. I suppose a better word would have been believable.

I tend to favor "plausible" in this usage when discussing stories from an academic or critical context.

[Kish]

Can't speak for Keltest, Ox, but what I'm saying is that most people do not need to be exposed to other people actively espousing an opinion to consider that more than one opinion on a subject will exist.

Not that I'm sure what "one opinion or the other opinion" is supposed to be here. What that was posted as a reply to looked like it was "it is/is not believable that someone would be surprised at a protean speaking to them," but the later "roomful of nerds can't agree" reference makes it seem more foundational to the thread: "a hunting horror/a protean."

[Tubercular Ox]

Can't speak for Keltest, Ox, but what I'm saying is that most people do not need to be exposed to other people actively espousing an opinion to consider that more than one opinion on a subject will exist.

Not that I'm sure what "one opinion or the other opinion" is supposed to be here. What that was posted as a reply to looked like it was "it is/is not believable that someone would be surprised at a protean speaking to them," but the later "roomful of nerds can't agree" reference makes it seem more foundational to the thread: "a hunting horror/a protean."

No matter how many times you tell me I don't understand the thread, somehow it does not quell my desire to keep trying. Am I a bad person for that?

From my point of view, which admittedly is always wrong, we were talking about how clearly the rules lay out that the Protean language is not recognizable as such to others, and/or how easy it is to infer that when the rules aren't clear.

I said it seemed like Rich's impression was more important than anything we could litigate.

I was told that was okay because it's fun to argue and the answer will be revealed eventually.

I asked if the Protean language argument were connected to the reveal, i.e. if it's on topic, and I was told no.

Then it got quiet.

Did the people driving the conversation stop talking because they didn't know it was off topic until then?

Or maybe I misunderstood. Maybe Errorname meant that it is on topic after all.

Does that mean the people driving the conversation stopped talking because they didn't know it was on topic until then?

Or is it all because I changed the subject back to the Hunting Horror? It did feel like nobody wanted that.

I'm sorry for interrupting. I promise not to respond to any more posts about the Protean's language.

[Keltest]

The language thing is on topic in so far as we're debating how well it fits a clue. It's honestly partly talking to fill the silence. We don't have a lot of new candidates or clues to work with, so we keep going back over the old ones.

[Errorname]

I asked if the Protean language argument were connected to the reveal, i.e. if it's on topic, and I was told no.

I didn't say no, I said not necessarily. If it is the Protean Rich has some logic behind why the hunter said what he said, which doesn't necessarily have to be the language thing, just something that makes sense to him as to why the hunter would say that.

Or maybe I misunderstood. Maybe Errorname meant that it is on topic after all.

I did not interpret "Does this mean that a Protean reveal will confirm that Rich thinks the Protean language can't be recognized as language in the same way that someone speaking Foreign IRL can be recognized as speaking a language?" as a question about how on-topic the language discussion was, and if I had I would have answered that yes, discussing how a candidate might work with the established details is on-topic and I would question why you thought it wasn't.

Does that mean the people driving the conversation stopped talking because they didn't know it was on topic until then?

I think you might be reading a little too much into that.

[Crusher]

Did the people driving the conversation stop talking because they didn't know it was off topic until then?

I can't speak for everyone who stopped posting, but imo people generally stop posting because they don't care enough to respond.

People don't *have* to logically work the arguments through to a solution and then respond commenting about it. People only do that if their interest in doing so exceeds their interest in doing anything else at that moment, more or less. Different people are interested in different things, but generally speaking people have finite interest in any particular thing. If the discussion (or whatever) around that topic is particularly interesting or funny or whatever, they'll hang around longer. If the discussion is less aligned with their personal interests, they'll leave sooner. Usually when people stop talking, they're just some combination of bored and busy with other things and only rarely because they disagree.

Food for thought: a story on how Crusher figured out how he thinks people (including him/me) think.

In grad school, I took lots of interesting classes but the one that had the most lasting impact on how I thought was Linear Optimization Modeling. The classic example being, a farmer is trying to feed his 20 cows as cheaply as possible. He knows each cow needs a specific mix of ~20 nutrients every day (calories, vitamins, roughage, etc in various amounts) to grow optimally and avoid being sick/unhappy/whatever. The farmer has found ~50 different things sourced from the store, on-line vendors, feed distributors, etc he can feed the cows. The 50 different things cost different amounts and have different combinations of the 20 nutrients. How do you figure out the cheapest mix of things for the farmer to feed his cows?

The answer, in a nutshell, is big spreadsheets and Monte Carlo simulation. It was fun and interesting. Great professor.

But I also decided that people's brains are basically gigantic linear optimization models. Everyone is the hero of their own story and (almost) no one ever thinks they're the bad guy, they're just trying to be happy and are making the decisions they think will get them there. But everyone's brain is wired a little differently.

Not just "you like vanilla ice cream, I like chocolate, and GW prefers sorbet", the more fundamental differences are things like preferred time frames: I enjoy an anticipated reward as much *or even more* than immediate gratification because I really enjoy looking forward to things (if you give me a birthday gift today, I will put it in a prominent place and look at it every day for weeks or even months while actively fighting off attempts to get me to open it early. As it happens, my birthday is next week so its not a great example, but the point remains). My wife, as with many things, thinks I'm insane and will open any gift instantly when you give it to her, regardless of when the occasion is because she wants it now and hates surprises.

People have different levels of tolerance for things like risk and interpersonal conflict, and varying degrees of anxiety from things like public speaking and financial security. People are really, really complicated (though if you found someone who was super honest and couldn't form new short-term memories I think I could chart it out in a decade or so), but you don't have to solve all the way down, because you can just simplify it to "People just want to be happy, and they're doing it mathematically whether they realize it or not."

The point is, when people have trouble finding common ground in discussion I like to trot it out as a discussion point to think about *why* people do things like "try to figure out what MitD is on a forum" or "are demanding a seemingly unreasonably high price for something we're negotiating over". there's lots of different ways to think about it and, if your mind works that way, people can be solvable (and you can figure out the "why?") if you *realize* they're solvable and really try.

[Ruck]

No matter how many times you tell me I don't understand the thread, somehow it does not quell my desire to keep trying. Am I a bad person for that?

Setting aside any evaluations of what kind of person you are-- whether or not you understand the thread, I don't know. It does seem to me like you spend more time and effort on discussing meta-aspects of the thread and the conversation in it, than trying to get closer to what you think is an answer to the question "What species is MitD?" or trying to find something you think might lead us to that answer.

From my point of view, which admittedly is always wrong, we were talking about how clearly the rules lay out that the Protean language is not recognizable as such to others, and/or how easy it is to infer that when the rules aren't clear.

I said it seemed like Rich's impression was more important than anything we could litigate.

At least speaking for myself, it wasn't clear that that was what you were referring to with your discussions of "Rich's impression" or "Rich's conclusions."

I was told that was okay because it's fun to argue and the answer will be revealed eventually.

I asked if the Protean language argument were connected to the reveal, i.e. if it's on topic, and I was told no.

See, you keep saying "I was told" without saying who told you something or what exactly they said. And for the most part, unless it's something specific about the thread rules or you're asking a fact-based question that can be answered clearly, most answers are going to be... like, someone's opinion, man. However much weight you assign them is your choice.

Then it got quiet.

Did the people driving the conversation stop talking because they didn't know it was off topic until then?

Or maybe I misunderstood. Maybe Errorname meant that it is on topic after all.

Does that mean the people driving the conversation stopped talking because they didn't know it was on topic until then?

Or is it all because I changed the subject back to the Hunting Horror? It did feel like nobody wanted that.

I'm sorry for interrupting. I promise not to respond to any more posts about the Protean's language.

Or maybe it's just because that part of the conversation had run its course, or the people commenting didn't have anything further to say, or (like me) they went on vacation for the last four days. The discussion in here ebbs and flows a lot. I wouldn't worry about it. Or this whole meta-analysis of trying to figure out why people do or don't post in general. I feel pretty confident that people are not going to avoid posting about something they want to discuss.

[Unoriginal]

There's also the fact that a discussion is between several people, and that one participant can decide it's not worth interacting with another participant at any moment for any reason, be it on general or on a specific topic.

For example, I know someone who's irrationally antagonistic toward the FromSoft-style video game design, so I've realized it was just not worth discussing that specific topic with them. But they're great to talk with on a ton of other topics.

For another example, there's a reason why there is a "block" function in the GitP forum. Curating whose posts you see can be vital to have a good experience.

[Precure]

Did the people driving the conversation stop talking because they didn't know it was off topic until then?

I think the escape scene can only explained by Wish or Miracle, and I don't buy other explanations, which is pretty controversial. But I'm not going to post this constantly because it would be pointless.

[Doug Lampert]

I think the escape scene can only explained by Wish or Miracle, and I don't buy other explanations, which is pretty controversial. But I'm not going to post this constantly because it would be pointless.

I admit that I would find the "dimensional anchor accidently hit the MitD, doesn't have it's visual effect; then teleport (which transports you and other stuff) suddenly just transports the other stuff but still works; and the MitD somehow knows where to send V and O'Chul via yet another unusual power which lets you read people's minds with enough precision to pull out a location that they probably aren't even thinking about to be highly unlikely at best.

Wish or Miracle or some equivalent is the overwhelming favorite for the escape scene.

But as you say, it's not worth constantly bringing up. I've stated my reasons, and people either accept them or not.

Similarly, I think eliminating undead because they are immune to mind-affecting effects is frankly insane. Undead are one of the easiest types to put under control. The Command Undead spell, which is only level 2 and other than lasting a minimum of 3 weeks when cast by X (which is too short a duration) is a fine fit for what's done, I don't know of anything else that would fit as well for the particular effect being used.

We need an unspecified and almost certainly custom spell for the order given and duration required, and a longer duration on a level 2 spell works great, as long as the target is of a type being excluded. But against things that allow mind control, we need much higher level magic to fail worse at explaining what's done.

But again, as you say, it's not worth constantly bringing up. I've stated my reasons, and people either accept them or not.

[ReaderAt2046]

Similarly, I think eliminating undead because they are immune to mind-affecting effects is frankly insane. Undead are one of the easiest types to put under control. The Command Undead spell, which is only level 2 and other than lasting a minimum of 3 weeks when cast by X (which is too short a duration) is a fine fit for what's done, I don't know of anything else that would fit as well for the particular effect being used.

We need an unspecified and almost certainly custom spell for the order given and duration required, and a longer duration on a level 2 spell works great, as long as the target is of a type being excluded. But against things that allow mind control, we need much higher level magic to fail worse at explaining what's done.

But again, as you say, it's not worth constantly bringing up. I've stated my reasons, and people either accept them or not.

Umm... I just rechecked the first post, and it lists undead as off-limits because they don't eat or sleep, not because they're immune to mind control.

[Kish]

What? Some undead types eat, and in some cases (BRAINS!) are better known for it than anything else.

[Errorname]

Yeah, not a chance MitD is undead. He sleeps, he eats, and he has a parent, but also his general character doesn't really fit with how undead are portrayed in this story.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What? Some undead types eat, and in some cases (BRAINS!) are better known for it than anything else.

Which is why it's followed with "(unless it is an exception)". If someone does find an undead that enjoys burgers and gruels, then it will obviously sidestep that requirement. I was literally thinking vampires when I wrote it in.

That said, we have seen mind-controlled undead, and they don't get swirly eyes. MitD did.

GW