The fact that none of the things you suggested are necessary for this to work in a story is demonstrated by the fact that the original Groundhog's Day worked as a story even though it didn't include any of them.
Not everything necessarily needs to be explained - and even if the author does decide to come up with an explanation (I certainly admit that if done well it can help a lot), there's no reason why that explanation needs to have anything at all in common with any of what you suggested. Using a different explanation, or even having no explanation at all, would simply result in a different - and not necessarily worse - story.
Understand: I'd have little or no problem with your suggestions if presented as "here's something else, more specific, you could do along with that" or as "here's something I thought of off of that idea". The problem I have is that you seem to have presented them as necessary things, as essential "missing components" of the original idea, without which that original idea cannot work. I'm pretty sure I've seen you do things like that repeatedly.
You stated "When a Groundhog's day loop happen it means something has gone so wrong the universe/multiverse breaks in response.". That does not have to always be true in every case; there's no particular sign that it was true in Groundhog's Day, it wasn't true in Time Braid, at the very least, and there are plenty of other possible explanations for such a phenomenon that do not involve this underlying assumption. (I think your "Three-Toed Sloth's Paw" itself is another such explanation.) And yet you presented it not as an idea or as a suggestion, as "one way of doing things" or as "how about this", but as a statement of fact.
Similarly, you present the lack of any explanation for why the loops happen as a problem that any story using the idea would necessarily have to overcome, when the original story which inspired the concept did not include any such explanation and does not appear to have exhibited any signs that this was a problem.
This is why I dislike (and hence try to avoid) getting into discussions where you are involved. From what I've seen, you seem to regularly pull in non sequiturs and ideas of your own invention as if they were part of the topic already under discussion (rather than as "something I thought of because of this") and/or as established facts, and go off on tangents based on the same - derailing the original discussion in the process, and making it harder for anything constructive that doesn't involve your tangents to get done. I'm sorry to say this, but it's gotten to the point where I sometimes literally cringe when I see that you've replied to something.
I did suggest that the "focal character" might mistakenly recognize the repeating events as a Groundhog's Day-style time loop, but that would be on the presumption that the character either is familiar with the concept of time loops in general, or has in fact actually seen Groundhog's Day. If the "three-day loop" pattern were common enough to be recognizable, presumably the character would recognize the loop as that instead, which would spoil the result I described.
The "technical details" I provided at the end, which I'm guessing is the "known rules" you referred to, are my meta-thoughts about how some crucial mechanics of the whole thing would work, on a pseudo-authorial level; they aren't something presumed to be known within the world, much less anything like common knowledge.
I don't see where you're getting "cycle through characters as they die off" from at all. Yes, I noted that if the character dies on the third day, that sticks - but I said nothing to indicate that the loop would pass on to focus on another character. It could if the author wanted it to, but in my original conception, the loops would just end at that point. (At least as far as anyone can tell, since the only one known to be capable of noticing that a loop has occurred is the one inside it... but there probably wouldn't be much room for practical consequences of that, in any case, unless the story follows the character into an afterlife.) That was intended as part of a way to subvert the "unlimited trial and error" nature of the original Groundhog's Day time loops.
And last but not least, even if something is causing it, there's no reason we have to know (much less to present in-story) an explanation of what that something is. Omitting that, as I said, merely results in a different kind of story.
Not everything necessarily needs to be explained - and even if the author does decide to come up with an explanation (I certainly admit that if done well it can help a lot), there's no reason why that explanation needs to have anything at all in common with any of what you suggested. Using a different explanation, or even having no explanation at all, would simply result in a different - and not necessarily worse - story.
Understand: I'd have little or no problem with your suggestions if presented as "here's something else, more specific, you could do along with that" or as "here's something I thought of off of that idea". The problem I have is that you seem to have presented them as necessary things, as essential "missing components" of the original idea, without which that original idea cannot work. I'm pretty sure I've seen you do things like that repeatedly.
You stated "When a Groundhog's day loop happen it means something has gone so wrong the universe/multiverse breaks in response.". That does not have to always be true in every case; there's no particular sign that it was true in Groundhog's Day, it wasn't true in Time Braid, at the very least, and there are plenty of other possible explanations for such a phenomenon that do not involve this underlying assumption. (I think your "Three-Toed Sloth's Paw" itself is another such explanation.) And yet you presented it not as an idea or as a suggestion, as "one way of doing things" or as "how about this", but as a statement of fact.
Similarly, you present the lack of any explanation for why the loops happen as a problem that any story using the idea would necessarily have to overcome, when the original story which inspired the concept did not include any such explanation and does not appear to have exhibited any signs that this was a problem.
Necratoid Wrote:The movie had no thought (on screen) given to finding the cause.. it doesn't even mean their weren't literally thousands of people looping globally.And it doesn't mean there were, either.
This is why I dislike (and hence try to avoid) getting into discussions where you are involved. From what I've seen, you seem to regularly pull in non sequiturs and ideas of your own invention as if they were part of the topic already under discussion (rather than as "something I thought of because of this") and/or as established facts, and go off on tangents based on the same - derailing the original discussion in the process, and making it harder for anything constructive that doesn't involve your tangents to get done. I'm sorry to say this, but it's gotten to the point where I sometimes literally cringe when I see that you've replied to something.
Necratoid Wrote:The very fact your suggesting this happens often enough to have known rules and cycle through characters as they die off for real means something must be causing it.I'm not suggesting any such thing.
I did suggest that the "focal character" might mistakenly recognize the repeating events as a Groundhog's Day-style time loop, but that would be on the presumption that the character either is familiar with the concept of time loops in general, or has in fact actually seen Groundhog's Day. If the "three-day loop" pattern were common enough to be recognizable, presumably the character would recognize the loop as that instead, which would spoil the result I described.
The "technical details" I provided at the end, which I'm guessing is the "known rules" you referred to, are my meta-thoughts about how some crucial mechanics of the whole thing would work, on a pseudo-authorial level; they aren't something presumed to be known within the world, much less anything like common knowledge.
I don't see where you're getting "cycle through characters as they die off" from at all. Yes, I noted that if the character dies on the third day, that sticks - but I said nothing to indicate that the loop would pass on to focus on another character. It could if the author wanted it to, but in my original conception, the loops would just end at that point. (At least as far as anyone can tell, since the only one known to be capable of noticing that a loop has occurred is the one inside it... but there probably wouldn't be much room for practical consequences of that, in any case, unless the story follows the character into an afterlife.) That was intended as part of a way to subvert the "unlimited trial and error" nature of the original Groundhog's Day time loops.
And last but not least, even if something is causing it, there's no reason we have to know (much less to present in-story) an explanation of what that something is. Omitting that, as I said, merely results in a different kind of story.