(08-06-2015, 05:23 PM)Verad Wrote:(08-06-2015, 04:38 PM)Nebbs Wrote: As each player is bringing different versions of un-reality with them, they can just as easily take away different views on the outcomes.
This works when the outcomes are just different interpretations of the same thing. One sees their opponent punched to the moon, the other just sees them self knocked down.
If they disagree on the essence of the outcome then that is simply a disagreement.
If you want 3rd parties to interpret things.. then they get to decide on their own version of un-reality.
The only truth here is that there are as many truths as there are people involved.
This works only insofar as actions occur within a vacuum, affecting only the two parties involved. As soon as the actions are implied to have a larger impact on the setting, it becomes more difficult to justify.
It's also really bog-standard criticisms of early empiricism mixed with a bit of solipsism, and feels a bit Philosophy 101. How do we really know our actions have an impact, you know? Man?
Nod..nod. Yep, that's muchly what I said.Â
It seems to me that if you want consensus not starting with realism vs godmodding would seem sensible. You need to have some common ground that all will accept and that would bound the validity of interactions. The closer the RP styles the larger this common ground can be, and will hold until someone does something the other(s) can't accept.
Char:Â [Nebula Stardancer] Â FC: [East Eerie Trading Co]
Link Shells: [Hugs & Cakes] Â [Witches' Wyrd Web]
