Well, some time ago I started to hear that many players when wish to speak about RL time IC say about it like "elven hours" or "Gods time" or something like this.

Another issue is when players wish to speak about certain stats or points. They speak about "stones", something "my dexterity is two stones lower than our racial maximum" or "you pay for additional tricks your guildmaster can teach you with stones, and trickA costs less stones than trickB".

So, how do you think of it? IMMs opinion is welcome.

It really depends on how important the communication of an exact number is.

For date and time, particularly related to a specific event, it's necessary to communicate very clearly. In my opinion, elven hours and 'as the gods track time' are fine. I've probably used them both in spoken conversation in game. In notes, I'm usually very explicit for times and dates. Nothing is worse than making time for an event and finding out you missed it.

As far as stones, degrees, and rainbows... I don't really see it the same way. As a character, I don't know that 3 deaths = 1 con. I do know that I feel less hearty after every death and resurrection. I don't know that I'm 2 points lower than max str. I do know that I focused my training routine and after several weeks, feel stronger for it. How would I know max racial str anyway? Generally, giants are stronger than humans are stronger than elves.

Obviously, it's a game and there are OOC mechanisms at work: combat rounds, stat points, experience to next level, even this strange tendency to travel in groups of three. It's fun to max/min and plan out character builds. That's "metagame", though, stuff you know as a player but your character doesn't know. So I don't really think it's necessary to communicate "2 more deaths and I lose a con" or "my dex is only at 23" or "this belt is +2 str" or "only 1346 more kobolds to level!."

I personally get annoyed at veiled attempts to communicate the metagame side IC, and I find it distracting to roleplaying. Your character wouldn't know that you're just 2 points away from max dex. Or two stones away from max dex. My character wouldn't even know what that means - or care, for that matter. Think about that the next time you're out with other people. Do you really think to yourself "Dude, that guy's int is 3 points lower than racial max!" Or do you think "What a freaking moron!"

Just my opinion though..

Made me laugh, so have to share.
http://www.jinx.com/minigeeks/baby/video_games/level_1_human_creeper.html

What's your take on the identify spell, or Alduk for that matter?

What is my character supposed to make of Alduk telling me (IC) that some item affects my mana by 10 points or my fatigue regeneration by 5%, literally?

Similarly, what is the proper IC response when my conjurer is asked to identify an item and provide feedback on it?

How do we separate the purely OOC data and mechanics of an IC spell and reapply that information (as a player) an an IC way, despite being motivated purely by the numbers?

Identify, lore, and Alduk (in my view) are giving metagame information from "the game" to "the player". You, as a player, make a decision to outfit your character in some way that brings some meaningful game mechanics advantage or disadvantage. As a character, you would only wear items that have roleplay significance, or that make you "feel" stronger, faster, sturdier, more healthy, etc. In my view, your character knows the specific numbers no more than he knows the information in the "score" command. He might know he's 56 years old. Does he really know he has 215 hours played?

Interacting with another player is when the division becomes a little more tricky. If someone asks me to identify something, I tell them something similar to the middle skill % lore spell: Your blows will land more accurately, and it should hinder your movements less, making you more nimble.. These are the types of things my character would sense by trying them out himself.

It's not ideal. It's not what the player is asking for, and it's not how you'd respond as one player to another if you're trying to help - especially since you know that they really just want to know if it's +3 or +5 dam. But from character to character, isn't that closer to what would actually transpire? (as an aside, rules lawyering kills pen-and-paper roleplay sessions...let the players think through problems and roleplay through them and they have a blast; but stop every 5 minutes to decide whether the roll needs to be a 14 or a 15 to succeed, and it breaks the immersion).

The stats on items, (again, in my opinion) are for the player. The character would know the actual numbers as some basic combination of medium skill lore and the compare skill. This one makes me feel stronger than that one. This one should do more damage than that one. The thing is, if "compare" was the only thing we had as players, we'd get frustrated and probably bored. Remember how attributes used to be prior to level 20?

Before I ramble off too much... identify, lore, and Alduk all play the same role: give the player metagame information about an item to make a decision on how to outfit the character. When you try to describe metagame information to another player in an interaction, that's when you run the risk of going OOC. The only way to stay in character is to think of how your character would really describe something - and in my opinion, it's better to stay vague, like compare and mid-skill lore.

For specific cases (ie, conjurer and contact planes), you'll have to think of which information to relay and how to keep it in character. Again, there's no "proper" way...this is just how I do it.

God, that's an incoherent mish mash of babble. At any point in there, did I actually make sense?

I do understand what you mean.

Like you said, the division gets tricky when you're forced to play out something through your character that is so obviously not an “RP thing”. I mean, you won't see most sphere beauty bards choosing the fashionable hat over the 20 pound iron full battle helm when the helm is +100 hp and the hat isn't.

I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my ahead the the fact that while my character clearly understands that a piece of equipment will make him a little smarter, regenerate mana more quickly, and slow him down a bit without being a number cruncher.

In some cases it makes sense. A good pair of boots might make you more dexterous. In many causes though, there is no logical reason for why the item would do what it does, and at that point I'm left thinking that my character is thinking, “+1 dex, -1 str, +5%mana regen, etc. etc”.

That's why I like to state things in term of other "known quantities".

Your warrior probably has a feeling for "how much" stronger he gets when he wears a pair of studded work gloves.

So I could describe a mandatory cloak as being "like wearing two pairs of work gloves" with regard to making you stronger.

I don't ever talk about losing points of constitution, how close I am to racial max, etc. in game. I do occasionally have to describe gear to someone, though, or have it described to me.

My only problem with "stones" is with the word itself. It makes sense that Thera's long-lived philosophers and self-absorbed adventurers would have defined a standard measure for all the personal traits they've been manipulating for ages. I just don't think "stones" is the term that would be coined and propagated by the transmuters, gnomes, elves, humans, or other probable sources.

They should know the range all tend to max at 25 and that each unit of Con subdivides in threes, and that effort in training one stat one unit equals that of training another stat one unit. So the esoteric might originally refer to one full stat point as a "triad", capturing the 3 subunits concept along with the mind/body/soul scope of each transaction. To the common ear and tongue, it likely becomes "tread", as in a step, and maybe "thread" soon after, probably interchangeable.

Or any other number of etymologies that would make far more sense than "stones". But at least it makes sense to talk about stat points ICly, unlike "elven hours".

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

I've always thought the "stones" thing was one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

You may feel this is just semantics, but I tend to handle stuff like that either by talking about "degrees" ("It makes you stronger by two degrees") or by putting it in terms of other gear that people are more familiar with, e.g. "It helps you hit harder similar to how a pair of charred bracers might."

With time I either just talk about it as-is, "10pm on Friday". It's rare that I ever have to talk about RL time outside of in-game notes.

Well, what if you wish to meet that certain buddy another time for some exploration trip or leave the group for a 20 minutes to eat and wish to inform this?

Sometimes there is a need to use something which names RL hours, do you find it acceptable if your companion will talk about "elven time" or "Gods time"? For example Heralds use it in their notes

I always try to avoid that in "spoken" conversation unless absolutely necessary. If I was going offline to eat, then I'd probably just say "I'll be back shortly" and leave it at that level of specificity.

I usually don't organize hell/etc. exploration trips. If I did, I'd probably just use the normal terms. "How about Friday at 10pm?"

However, degrees are nearly just as retarded as stones. I use something found in Thera as measure or just say something like "it makes you a bit stronger".

No, "degree" actually means something that's relevant to what's being discussed.

You train with the trainer? Stronger by a degree. Etc.

"Stones" has nothing to do with strength, or dexterity, or anything else. It's just substituting a random word for "points". You might as well say "It makes you stronger by two rainbows." It would make about as much sense.