"Realms with starry skies" feats

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And i for one am not seeing how “it can be fake, an illusion, etc” means the Occam’s razor normally means a dimension is fake first before anything else. “It can” isn’t an argument since it’s just as much likely that dimensions can be real ones.

Occam's Razor just means you can't make an assumption without evidence.

The immediate assumption that "Starry sky = pocket dimension" is something that isn't even normal. It's just built into a person's brain after they are already immersed into battleboard debating jargon and ideas. Nobody who is normal reaches the same conclusion just from seeing a background shift in a videogame.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Occam's Razor just means you can't make an assumption without evidence.

The immediate assumption that "Starry sky = pocket dimension" is something that isn't even normal. It's just built into a person's brain after they are already immersed into battleboard debating jargon and ideas. Nobody who is normal reaches the same conclusion just from seeing a background shift in a videogame.

If we’re speaking in the context of teleporting to another dimension or something like this, I agree.

But you’d need to have a reason to think those assumptions would be the most plausible. Especially for anyone who creates pocket realities and doesn’t say, have, teleportation themselves.

 

[00potato]

What your average person thinks has no bearing on the validity of any-feat. They won’t think anything about the background on first view, so they aren’t helping your point either. It isn’t like someone looks at a sketch of a sky full of stars and immediately assumes it isn’t supposed to represent the night sky.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

As a matter of fact, this leads me to this next issue regarding dimensions being possibly fake.

It’s entirely possible for a pocket dimension to be made as an illusion or fake effect, or for a character to teleport others to different realities. But to first assume that said pocket reality feat is any of the former possibilities, you would then also have to assume that the character in question has any of those established abilities, and has had them prior as well, in order for it to be suggested in the first place. Aka:

If the particular dimension is a fake illusion, the character doing that the “feat” now has illusion creation.

If the particular dimension was just one you teleported into, the character doing the “feat” now has cross-dimensional teleportation.

So my question here is why would we also assume that a character who does a pocket reality “feat” has any of those abilities in order to maintain the idea that the feat isn’t real? Especially if the character has never even displayed illusion creation, teleportation, or anything similar?

 

[Ionliosite]

If the particular dimension was just one you teleported into, the character doing the “feat” now has cross-dimensional teleportation.

If a character takes another to a pocket dimension, yes, they would have cross-dimensional teleportation. This isn't even an hard assumption, if a character is on one place and suddenly appears in a totally different one, then teleportation is the most likely assumption. And like on the examples Matt mentioned, this isn't an AP feat, let alone 4-A.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It’s entirely possible for a pocket dimension to be made as an illusion or fake effect, or for a character to teleport others to different realities. But to first assume that said pocket reality feat is any of the former possibilities, you would then also have to assume that the character in question has any of those established abilities, and has had them prior as well, in order for it to be suggested in the first place. Aka:

What even is this argument?

How is assuming that a character can simply create portals or teleport people more absurd than assuming they can create pocket dimensions? If anything the former assumptions are far more accepting to Occam's Razor.

This is literally what happened with Power Rangers back in 2016. Ranger took bad guy to another dimension via a portal on his shield and people somehow assumed that meant he not only created the dimension, but also exerted complete reality-warping control over it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

What even is this argument?

How is assuming that a character can simply create portals

I never mentioned portals.

or teleport people more absurd than assuming they can create pocket dimensions?

Because if the characters in question never displayed teleportation at all before, why would you assume that they are doing that in this one specific instance?

You would have to make up abilities for them to have for it to be possible.

If anything the former assumptions are far more accepting to Occam's Razor.

This is literally what happened with Power Rangers back in 2016. Ranger took bad guy to another dimension via a portal on his shield and people somehow assumed that meant he not only created the dimension, but also exerted complete reality-warping control over it.

Once again, I’m not talking about portals here.

I’m talking about teleporting others to a dimension and/or a dimension being an illusion effect.

If the character never once displayed either ability before the “feat” happened, why would you first assume that they are doing that here in this specific moment?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Because if the characters in question never displayed dimensional creation at all before, why would you assume that they are doing that in this one specific instance?

Changed your wording to show how you are siding arbitrarily with the creation assumption.

 

[Antoniofer]

I mean, isn't creating a pocket dimension via a "mini big bang" also an assumption when the character hasn't showed feat of creation at a cosmic level?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I mean, isn't creating a pocket dimension via a "mini big bang" also an assumption when the character hasn't showed feat of creation at a cosmic level?

It isn’t necessarily about if its an assumption or not, it’s about it being a more plausible one that takes less leaps in logic.

Sure, it being created can be an assumption, but it is more blatant and in your face compared to it being done via abilities that the character never once displayed before or was known to possess. Thats the key difference.

If any given dimension appears out of nowhere, the first thing that pops into the mind would be that it’s created instead of individuals being selectively teleported into it or that the dimension itself is fake (until proven later on anyway)

 

[Ionliosite]

It's a far smaller leap in logic to assume they just teleport that they created a dimension light years in size. And can you drop the "assuming teleport is wrong when they never showed that" since the same can be said about cosmic size creation.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It's a far smaller leap in logic to assume they just teleport that they created a dimension light years in size. And can you drop the "assuming teleport is wrong when they never showed that" since the same can be said about cosmic size creation.

When you have to make up entirely new abilities for the character to make that possibility stick, it’s not a far smaller leap.

Creation is at least suggested by the very instance itself, whereas nothing about it being a teleportation feat gets suggested without more specific context in the scene

Either way, I’m still agreeing with Andy and Potato completely that the Occam’s razor should be it’s created first until something suggests otherwise.

 

[00potato]

Shouldn’t this be a case by case basis?
If it looks more like teleportation then creation, then treat it as that.
If it seems to be or is stated as creation. (Like some of the feats in that Mario thread.) then we treat it as that.

 

[Ionliosite]

When you have to make up entirely new abilities for the character to make that possibility stick, it’s not a far smaller leap.

Exactly, hence, unless the character has feats of cosmic creation, assuming they are now suddenly able to do it out of nowhere, is a far bigger leap.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

.

 

[00potato]

Again, this would just be a case by case situation rather then anything you can put into hard rules.
If you can argue for X situation being Teleporting, sure
If you can argue for X being Creation, sure.
We don’t need to waste more time here.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Again, this would just be a case by case situation rather then anything you can put into hard rules.
If you can argue for X situation being Teleporting, sure
If you can argue for X being Creation, sure.
We don’t need to waste more time here.

Fair enough.

I’ll be siding with this.

 

[Antoniofer]

So, as an alternative, if someone has personal domain with x appearance, and the character hasn't showed feats of creation, inner world, immersion or space manipulation, one simply give him Pocket Reality Manipulation and most likely teleportation (in general, characters tend to teleport there along its targets), being a complete non-factor tiering and scaling wise.

 

[00potato]

If you could prove that it’s theres yet we have reason to believe they didn’t make it, sure.

 

[Ionliosite]

So, as an alternative, if someone has personal domain with x appearance, and the character hasn't showed feats of creation

Unless there's proof that the pocket dimension was created by them, yes, the assumption should be that it wasn't created by them, burden of proof asks for evidence to the positive claim after all.

 

[AKM sama]

Simply put, this discussion is shifting around where common sense and logical assumption should be placed before the need for evidence comes. You need to have a reason to think the dimension would be an illusion or a fake.

I can easily revert this by saying that Occam's razor actually supports the other interpretation as in many examples where a starry background is simply a cool visual light show effect and that you always need evidence to prove a positive and I don't have to prove a negative. All I have to do is question the feat until you prove it. That is essentially how battleboarding works.

 

[Antvasima]

AKM and Antoniofer:

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I can easily revert this by saying that Occam's razor actually supports the other interpretation as in many examples where a starry background is simply a cool visual light show effect

Would you mind listing some of these “many” examples then please?

I keep seeing this easily thrown around without people who say it actually posting examples of it to say it’s common.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I can easily revert this by saying that Occam's razor actually supports the other interpretation as in many examples where a starry background is simply a cool visual light show effect and that you always need evidence to prove a positive and I don't have to prove a negative. All I have to do is question the feat until you prove it. That is essentially how battleboarding works.

This.

The only people who see a cool background effect and immediately assume pocket dimension are battleboarders who are already mentally-inclined to see feats where the story intended for none.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

"My world" isn't exactly evidence they created the dimension yes; though, there should be a reason for why they have dominion over it. Either the dimension always existed, but the character happened to discover it; or the god who actually created it simply gave ownership to someone else. More likely the former if there is no proof the person created it.

Being a lord of realms, I've never quite used that alone as evidence. But I'd still refer to the above paragraph. Also, "My World" doesn't always mean they ruled over it, it mainly means that they were born from that world/dimension.

Although, regardless whether or not a pocket reality was created, there's no denial that physically destroying a pocket reality is clearly AP.

 

[Sera_EX]

What am I supposed to say to contribute to this conversation that we’ve had about five times now? Especially when the same arguments and counter-arguments are being thrown out there again and again.

 

[Antoniofer]

If someone destroy a pocket dimension it have to be in the same way one would destroy a conventional galaxy (or whatever the size is supposed to have); if it destroy the pocket reality by killing the user triggering a "fancy" collapse (like for example shattering glasses), then iis further proof of the dimension not working as just an isolated galaxy.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

amples then please?

If someone destroy a pocket dimension it have to be in the same way one would destroy a conventional galaxy (or whatever the size is supposed to have); if it destroy the pocket reality by killing the user triggering a "fancy" collapse (like for example shattering glasses), then iis further proof of the dimension not working as just an isolated galaxy.

Idk who mentioned this but I’m sure no one here would agree with this being an actual feat, let alone a scalable one.

 

[Antoniofer]

Was "expanding" that last thing Medeus said, if people is fine it. You'll surprised what people would consider a feat, character may change the color of the sun to pink and people will try to relate it to AP and then scale it to other stats.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Oh no, I for one definitely dont stand for the whole "color change, therefore AP" thing but yeah I see what you meant now.

 

[Sera_EX]

That was a legitimate question by the way. I hope I'm not expected to read entire discussions just to get the general point (especially with several threads calling my attention). I want to stick around and help, but there's limits on what I can do these days. A summary of some kind would be nice.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I'll give my stance on this, there should be plenty of evidence that supports the pocket realities created have actual real life sized stars in order for a character to scale to 4-A, just assuming they're real life sized stars is not valid enough for 4-A IMO

 

[Antvasima]

That was a legitimate question by the way. I hope I'm not expected to read entire discussions just to get the general point (especially with several threads calling my attention). I want to stick around and help, but there's limits on what I can do these days. A summary of some kind would be nice.

Can somebody provide a summary of the discussion so far please?

 

[AKM sama]

I am fine with Starry Sky feats as long as:

1. It is made clear that what was created was an actual dimension with real space-time and not just some illusion, or distorted realm, or immersion effect

2. There's reason for you to believe the "shining dots in the sky" are actual stars.

3. There's reason to believe why this would scale to the character's offensive power.

If we applied this level to scrutiny to fictions in general, 90% of Starry Sky feats would be bunk, but the concept wouldn't be overrun entirely.

@Sera_EX Basically this. I don't think people have problems with points 1 and 3. The main topic is point 2 where some people believe that shiny dots in background should automatically assumed to be stars by default. And the other side believes that it should just be considered visual effect unless explicitly proven to be stars.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Sera_EX Basically this. I don't think people have problems with points 1 and 3. The main topic is point 2 where some people believe that shiny dots in background should automatically assumed to be stars by default. And the other side believes that it should just be considered visual effect unless explicitly proven to be stars.

Assuming anything by default is extremely problematic and not how analysis or science or intuition works in any field.

 

[Andytrenom]

You are acting like we are assuming these dimensions have stars out of nowhere. No, we say there are stars because we plainly see stars, and in the context of lights that are spread out across the sky of another world, it makes most sense for these to be stars, it's just a weird hypothetical scenario for these to be random lights that only coincidentally mimic the appearance of stars, and not at all what is more plausible in most scenarios

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No, we say there are stars because we plainly see stars

I've seen many backgrounds that don't even look like stars be assumed to be stars just because of white dots.

and not at all what is more plausible in most scenarios

90% of the time the most plausible explanation is that the developers making the side-scroller just put the background there because they wanted to make the Boss Fight look cooler.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I've seen many backgrounds that don't even look like stars be assumed to be stars just because of white dots.

Where?

90% of the time the most plausible explanation is that the developers making the side-scroller just put the background there because they wanted to make the Boss Fight look cooler.

This is like saying any fight doing any high level feat is invalid because authors do it “just to make fights” cooler. And we all know how very little intent stands here from authors and developers.

The intent of how something is done in any given story, series, game, etc. doesn’t matter. The point is that it’s there. It doesn’t matter if an author did or didn’t intend to make a character do a FTL feat, they still did one and can be rated as such. It doesn’t matter if the author meant or didn’t meant for their characters to destroy planets, those are still real and valid planet level feats for them to be rated from. So it also shouldn’t matter that a starry background was placed within the setting for more appeal, there would still be stars there. And if its involved in a feat, then its a valid feat like the former.

 

[Andytrenom]

It doesn't really matter if it's put there to look cool or not, if it's something that resembles stars in the sky of what we know to be its own realm, then they are most likely stars, all you've said at that point is that maybe the artist finds starry backgrounds cool, which is just as much achievable with real stars as fake ones. Honestly them being fake is weirder since you don't really have a reason to do that when you don't point it out anyway

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This is like saying any fight doing any high level feat is invalid because authors do it “just to make fights” cooler. And we all know how very little intent stands here from authors and developers.

A background is not a feat lmao. Interpreting it as a feat immediately without proof is the real issue.