Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9661387" data-attributes="member: 13383">You're affirming the idea that a fictional world has no causal continuity apart from the decisions of its author. That lines up with the view that all fiction is shaped entirely by authorial intent, where meaning and consequence only exist because someone decides they should. In contrast, my position treats fictional continuity as if it were real, within the bounds of the system and procedures that define it. This includes causal chains that persist even when the author or referee isn’t actively focusing on them.These are irreconcilable viewpoints. The disagreement isn’t just about technique, it’s about what fiction is and how it functions during play. From those different starting points, our reasoning naturally diverges. Your arguments make sense given your stance. Mine follow from the assumption that the world, once established, is consistent and causally autonomous.For those reading along, this is similar to the historical divide between the Romantics and the Realists in literature. Romantics shaped their stories around emotional truth and artistic vision. Realists grounded theirs in consistent, observable detail, even when the results were less dramatic. Both produced compelling works, but they started from different assumptions about what fiction is supposed to do. The two approaches can’t easily be reconciled because they answer different creative questions.Before replying, I ask that you consider why you’re continuing to debate this point. What are you hoping to achieve, given the assumptions you’ve clearly stated? If your goal is to critique my techniques, methods, and how they flow from my stance, that’s a valid and worthwhile discussion. But continuing to argue from the premise that your stance is the only correct approach, and that mine is inherently flawed, doesn’t lead to a productive exchange. At that point, it stops being creative discussion and turns into debate for its own sake.Regarding your other two points, I don’t see value in continuing to debate them. Your responses are consistent with your stance and assumptions, and from within that framework, they make sense. That’s not meant to be dismissive, it’s just a recognition that further back-and-forth won’t be productive when the underlying premises are so different.</blockquote>

Verification