Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L: Monsters and Stories
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6206603" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>We both read about the same donor experiment, and you're applying that donor experiment to this set of circumstances. Here is the TED talk on it:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html" target="_blank">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html</a></p><p></p><p>Why don't you repeat to me what your argument is, if I am getting it wrong. </p><p></p><p>It sure seems to me you're arguing that people will accept the fluff descriptive text of monsters in the monster manual, even if they don't like it and it doesn't fit their campaign well, because it's the default text and they'd have to actively opt-out of that text to not use it. And since people don't actively opt-out but almost always use the default (according to the experiment), they will simply use what's written.</p><p></p><p>But then you did something outside the experiment. The experiment says people don't know what to do in the situation, and so accept the choice made by the creators of the form. But you changed it - you then said people will select another option in another source, like a Pathfinder description or a description from an older version of the game or a setting for the game. </p><p></p><p>None of that is covered by this experiment. There is nothing in this experiment that shows that people will seek outside options and then choose one different from the default. The experiment says that the selection process and issue at stake is so complex that people do not know what to do, and we will just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us. That's a direct quote by the way. We select the default option in the form in front of us, almost every time. No looking outside that form, no seeking other options, we just go with the default in front of us.</p><p></p><p>And there are other options for that donor issue. 'Checking the box/leaving it unchecked' are not the only two options in that experiment. Including documents in your estate planning package to deal with organ donation is a third option, and in fact it's the option most tailored to your particular needs. There are even set forms for such things to include in your estate planning (I know, it's something I do for a living sometimes). But you know what? People don't usually seek out those other options. They still just go with the default option on the driver's license form, almost every time. Even when they bother to have estate planning documents drafted, they usually don't opt for particularized organ donor documents to go with them.</p><p></p><p>So I am going back to the experiment you argued from, and saying if the experiment is applicable to this situation, then people will use the default text in the monster manual almost every time. It would not matter if there are other things they could seek out in other books - they would not seek them out if the experiment is correct. People would not use the other options.</p><p></p><p>But the experiment is only correct for the manner of decision-making described in the experiment. There are certain elements present not present in other situations. It's not an experiment that observes ALL nature of human decision-making, the authors of the experiment never implied it was to be used in that manner, and it's not usable in that manner. </p><p></p><p>And this is one of those circumstances that so differs from the circumstances of the experiment that the experiment isn't applicable here. And you know how you know? Because people don't go with the default option. They houserule it or seek outside things to replace it - which is behavior not exhibited in the donor experiment even though the donor issue includes all those sorts of other options.</p><p></p><p>I've argued the reason for this is the nature of the decision isn't similar - the issue is not as important, the issue is not as complex, the issue has much more immediacy than the donor, and the issue is more directly impactful (it's about to happen in their game) than the donor issue.</p><p></p><p>But whatever the reason, we know the opt-in experiment isn't particularly applicable to the fluff text issue - we both agree people choose alternate fluff text if they don't like it. I said they houserule it, you said they choose other text like from Pathfinder, but we both agree they don't just accept it as written if they don't like it. Which wouldn't happen if the donor experiment were applicable to this set of circumstances.</p><p></p><p>So, tell me where I got this wrong?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6206603, member: 2525"] We both read about the same donor experiment, and you're applying that donor experiment to this set of circumstances. Here is the TED talk on it: [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html[/url] Why don't you repeat to me what your argument is, if I am getting it wrong. It sure seems to me you're arguing that people will accept the fluff descriptive text of monsters in the monster manual, even if they don't like it and it doesn't fit their campaign well, because it's the default text and they'd have to actively opt-out of that text to not use it. And since people don't actively opt-out but almost always use the default (according to the experiment), they will simply use what's written. But then you did something outside the experiment. The experiment says people don't know what to do in the situation, and so accept the choice made by the creators of the form. But you changed it - you then said people will select another option in another source, like a Pathfinder description or a description from an older version of the game or a setting for the game. None of that is covered by this experiment. There is nothing in this experiment that shows that people will seek outside options and then choose one different from the default. The experiment says that the selection process and issue at stake is so complex that people do not know what to do, and we will just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us. That's a direct quote by the way. We select the default option in the form in front of us, almost every time. No looking outside that form, no seeking other options, we just go with the default in front of us. And there are other options for that donor issue. 'Checking the box/leaving it unchecked' are not the only two options in that experiment. Including documents in your estate planning package to deal with organ donation is a third option, and in fact it's the option most tailored to your particular needs. There are even set forms for such things to include in your estate planning (I know, it's something I do for a living sometimes). But you know what? People don't usually seek out those other options. They still just go with the default option on the driver's license form, almost every time. Even when they bother to have estate planning documents drafted, they usually don't opt for particularized organ donor documents to go with them. So I am going back to the experiment you argued from, and saying if the experiment is applicable to this situation, then people will use the default text in the monster manual almost every time. It would not matter if there are other things they could seek out in other books - they would not seek them out if the experiment is correct. People would not use the other options. But the experiment is only correct for the manner of decision-making described in the experiment. There are certain elements present not present in other situations. It's not an experiment that observes ALL nature of human decision-making, the authors of the experiment never implied it was to be used in that manner, and it's not usable in that manner. And this is one of those circumstances that so differs from the circumstances of the experiment that the experiment isn't applicable here. And you know how you know? Because people don't go with the default option. They houserule it or seek outside things to replace it - which is behavior not exhibited in the donor experiment even though the donor issue includes all those sorts of other options. I've argued the reason for this is the nature of the decision isn't similar - the issue is not as important, the issue is not as complex, the issue has much more immediacy than the donor, and the issue is more directly impactful (it's about to happen in their game) than the donor issue. But whatever the reason, we know the opt-in experiment isn't particularly applicable to the fluff text issue - we both agree people choose alternate fluff text if they don't like it. I said they houserule it, you said they choose other text like from Pathfinder, but we both agree they don't just accept it as written if they don't like it. Which wouldn't happen if the donor experiment were applicable to this set of circumstances. So, tell me where I got this wrong? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L: Monsters and Stories
Top