Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8596197" data-attributes="member: 71699">No, that's entirely off the mark. I'm not objecting to retcons, I'm observing that there are fewer of them.It's "opt-ins" all the way down.What I would suggest contemplating here is the veracity of two timelines. Are there really two timelines? Specifically, is there a real second timeline paralleling our physical one that contains fiction? Suppose we were to agree that there is only one real universe in which our play occurs, and anything that happens must change the state of that universe; on the grounds that in the absence of such change we can't possibly attest to anything happening.Then consider how the game must be played in just one timeline, so as to produce the experiences that a simplified description pictures as two timelines with information exchanges between them. As (in the way that) the fictional timeline informs the real timeline, we can call the fictional positioning. To reiterate, there is no such second timeline and there is no possibility of an event that we can know about that causes no change at that moment on our single timeline*.FitM enables us to do some useful retconning to reconstruct the fictional positioning, but think too about my signet of fostering quickness and bloodiness. (I would like to remark here that so much of [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s narrating and naming is truly excellent, such as the outcomes he suggested for the ambush test.) Seeing as I include intentionality in my construct for fictional positioning, I don't exclude informing intentions from entailing potential actions sufficiently well without necessitating further commitment at that moment.*I should be clear here that my actual thoughts on time are far more complex than simple acceptance of a single corridor of time. I would point to JME McTaggart and B Greene as starting points about that.</blockquote>

Verification