Can you understand this enough to write with it?

[Jyoliod]

I'm currently writing quite a detailed article about a magic system I've made, the goal in this is to introduce a magic system that I intend to use, and others can use or alter for RPs where magic can be treated like a science rather than just a creative means to an end. This presents many issues, but the most pressing issue right now is explaining a specific feature in such a way, that a complete laymen can grasp it and eventually use it in their posts.

So glorious reader, could you please read the following excerpt in the hider and tell me if it makes sense to you and if possible, could you list any glaring issues you might have with the explanation. Even a simple 'yeah, I get it.' or 'no this stinks.' will be very helpful.

[A little context before you read]: The excerpt addresses a concept in the magic system called 'layers'. A 'layer' in this context, without going too in depth, is like a separate plane of existance where the laws of physics are slightly different.

Excerpt

Let's say you have a 3D diagram of New York city and you put it on a three axis square grid, so you have an 'x' axis to resemble length, a 'y' axis to resemble width and a 'z' axis to resemble height and depth. Now if we were to introduce a 'layers' aspect from the magic system into our NYC diagram, how would we map that feature on the grid? Well we can't, we'd require another axis that does not overlap with any of the existing axis, but is able to chart a new location in tandem with the other three axis. The main point I am hoping to share here is that going to a different layer is not like going to another location, visually it may appear the same as going to another location, but in actuality your character's body could be in a different layer, while their 'x', 'y' and 'z' axis position has not changed at all. Although this might be a hard concept to grasp, it can be quite important to the more advanced aspects of the magic system such as spell casting and influence.

-Thank you

[Cerberov]

It sounds no more confusing or paradoxical than actual physics, and it seems workable in whatever setting you're going for.

[Jyoliod]

Thank you @Cerberov, insight from the local users is a great help in this regard.

[Revans Exile]

The way it reads to me is layers are kind of like shifting from one dimensional plane to another.

[Jyoliod]

The way it reads to me is layers are kind of like shifting from one dimensional plane to another.

@Revans Exile

That too would be a good way to explain it, though I needed to ensure an emphasis on the 'x', 'y' and 'z' position idea for certain spells detailed later in the article. Thank you for your feed back.

[Ebil Bunny]

So x, y, and z are where the magic is being cast, and <I> is what spell is being cast? Or is <I> where the magic is being stored, and x, y, and z is where it's being moved to?

Or is it more <I> the same dimension, but slightly shifted, so if your x, y, and z are at your house, then you just change your <I> slightly, you're outside your house?

[Jyoliod]

Or is it more <I> the same dimension, but slightly shifted, so if your x, y, and z are at your house, then you just change your <I> slightly, you're outside your house?

@Ebil Bunny

This would be the most accurate, if x, y, and z are a position in your house, then changing <I> keeps you in the same position (theoretically) yet you are in a different place. Given your original examples, I feel that had I provided a proper example, using concepts of the system that are discussed before this section of the article, it would easily clear up your first two assumptions. I will take your observation on board, thank you.

Additionally, was there anything specifically, maybe the way I worded something, that caused you to come to your first two assumptions?

[Ebil Bunny]

Additionally, was there anything specifically, maybe the way I worded something, that caused you to come to your first two assumptions?

@Jyoliod

Not really, the first two assumptions were made according to how "normal magic" works, and the last assumption seemed somewhat logical according to my knowledge of coordinates.

I guess a way you could explain it a bit better is just to say that <I> is literally a fourth coordinate, rather than some special property.

[Jyoliod]

<Snipped quote by Jyoliod>

Not really, the first two assumptions were made according to how "normal magic" works, and the last assumption seemed somewhat logical according to my knowledge of coordinates.

I guess a way you could explain it a bit better is just to say that <I> is literally a fourth coordinate, rather than some special property.

@Ebil Bunny

The only issue with this suggestion falls into information addressed in the article later, but the very basic gist of it is that some layers do not have an 'x, y and z' value at all relative to the <I> value, instead their very presence in the <I> value implies the 'x, y and z' value, that is to say; the <I> replaces the 'x, y and z' values in such a way that the user can be converted back.

But I will take your suggestion into serious consideration when I start re-wording some aspects of my earlier parts of my article (such as the excerpt in the OP) as it'd be much easier to understand that way conceptually. - Thank you for your responses!