I was just reading The Applied Theory article and had this idea. I don't know if I want to turn it into a game or not, but here it is nonetheless. If one of you can do something with it before I can, go for it. I would love to see where this goes.  Here's my brainstorm. Please let me know what you all think:

What if every time two (or more) players had a conflict, both desired outcomes succeeded? That is, say two players are fighting, and each wants the other dead in character.  Or any other conflict Instantly two game worlds emerge, one with one victor, one with the other. Then, the players spend time in both worlds until it is determined which one they are having more fun in, at which point that becomes the primary world. Every branch is recorded, and rules could be in place (maybe a stop-watch mechanic) that governs how long to spend on a branch before branches must be switched or the decision to adopt it as the main branch and discard the others (or maybe keep them for experimenting if for some reason this branch becomes un-fun).

I see the potential for this to get really messy, really quickly.

First dilemma...who's reality do we play in first? The player who's reality is chosen first gets the benefit of continuing with the flow of the story so far...the other players reality begins with a "disjointed rewind". Conversely, when the time comes to choose which reality is "more fun", the second player's reality is fresher in the groups mind...if the players go back to the first reality, there will be another "disjointed rewind" when play resumes back in the first reality.

Second dilemma...what happens when a new branching of reality paths occurs before we've had a good chance to explore one of the two realities? Do we break it off at this point then follow the other reality? Do we explore the two new branches before going back over to the original alternative path of destiny?

Does the proposed mechanism specifically limit the number of potential reality breaks? No more than one new reality created during every five minutes of play time.

I remember a little game called Psychosis, where everyone played a character suffering from a different insanity the completely shifted their perception of the universe. The GM would describe events to each player through the filter of their characters unique world view...when two characters got together, they could listen to the descriptions each of their characters were given and then try to piece together what was really happening from the shared descriptive elements.

Perhaps this kind of mechanism could work in a similar way.

Each character thinks that they have accomplished their task successfully and can go on their continued path believing that everything is good, but once two characters try to work together, they start to see fractures between their comparative realities. They then have to decide who's version of "the truth" is right.

Just an idea...

V

An alternative would be simply have both players succeed, but their actions cannot be directly opposed (i.e. "I kill Joe."  "I escape unharmed.").  So a scenario might play out like this:
Bob: I hit Joe with my sword.
Joe: I hit Bob with my sword.
GM: Ok, roll for damage.
Bob: I hit Joe with my sword again.
Joe: Me too.
GM: Roll damage.
Joe: Shoot.
Bob: I hit Joe again.
Joe: ...I run away.
GM: Roll damage.
Joe: Yes!  I'm alive!  Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!  I find a place to hide and break out the potions.
Bob: You little... I find Joe.
GM: Ok, Joe is back at full health now, though.
Etc.

In this sort of game, you might want to limit the allowed actions.  For example, only characters with the Lockpick skill can pick locks, no one else can even try.  I can see other problems developing out of this as well, but I'm sure there would be a way to deal with those.  And this would be a lot less messy.

Thanks for the input guys. As a side note, your blog is great Vulplinoid.

I don't really have solid answers for any of the concerns you have, Vulpinoid. Its mostly because this is a brand new idea to me. I think the easiest resolution method would be some out of game resource used to purchase a given path. And there would need to be a rule to limit new reality numbers and time spent in each one. As for the freshness issue, I don't see a good solution right now. However, I did really like your fractured minds suggestion. Its a very different direction, and deserves some thought.

And Egon, thanks for the input on this one. Your idea of allowing characters to succeed is interesting, but not quite as close to what I had in mind. Your example didn't allow one character to kill the other, just to run him off. I was thinking that a given character would actually both die and live at the same time if it came to it. Vulpinoid's is a bit closer but also not quite what I was thinking. I would like to pursue his as well as my own ideas as a thought project a little, try to maybe work out some mechanics to get this idea off the ground. I could see it either as a meta-game add-on for any rpg, or as the central idea for an rpg. I'm not sure which, if either option is better. That said, a "yes can" attitude toward things as you describe it Egon, is a very good way to run a game, ensuring everyone gets as much as they want. So I think it will go down in my head as great GMing advice.

Thanks again, both of you. We should see what comes of this discussion.