while I agree with what you are saying the problem often is that people go into every conversation needing to Win. Not sure the term "victory conditions" would help.That's kind of my point
There's an expression that many people need to learn that comes out of both board games and actual warfare; "victory conditions."
The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
- Status
I know about the public.
A few years back, I was working on a high-profile issue. I can't go into the details, but imagine it was a battle between X and Y, and Y is the status quo.
I happened to personally want X, but I was hired by Y. Here's the thing- I knew that, as a matter of law, X was going to fail.* Miserably. But I knew a lot of people that were really in favor of X. And were giving a lot of money to X. And there were a lot of passionate feelings about X. But it was always going to be a boondoggle, because it could never happen.
I can still recall trying to explain this to some close friends, and while some of them who knew me well (and my areas of expertise) wisely chose not to donate to X, others ... well, it was money not well spent. And a lot of people are still really angry about it that I know. Angry that they spent all that money, and angry that the thing they supported ... didn't happen, and they still can't quite understand why (because law is hard, especially when you have a vested interest in not understanding it).
*To give you an idea; imagine someone in your town wanted to get rid of the federal income tax. So they had the town pass a law saying that the people in the town ... don't have to pay federal income taxes! Great idea, right! And, of course, you're going to get a lot of people really excited about it. And you're going to be able to say, "BUT THE VOTERS SPOKE!" Trouble is ... that's never going to actually happen. Basically, that's what occurred. People were promised something that couldn't happen. Still makes me angry thinking about it to this day.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
This is also my experience with D&D combat scenes. Sometimes combat is a really bad idea, but the players are just determined to have combat, and they can't be reasoned with and no matter how many opportunities I give them to talk their way past a dangerous encounter, or de-escalate it, or even just retreat, they will still insist on combat. Then they stare at me with sad puppy-dog eyes as they watch the dice slaughter them all one by one.
Players: "Why did you put that monster in the scene if we weren't supposed to kill it?! That monster was totally OP! I demand a do-over!"
DM: "For starters, 'that monster' was King Oberon of the Fey...your warlock's patron. He was there to give you your next quest."
Players: "Well he looked menacing."
DM: "You wrote the description for your own patron. You specifically use the word 'menacing,' remember?"
Players: "Well you could have at least given us the opportunity to retreat."
DM: "I did. The guards tried to stop the fight twice but you attacked them also."
Players: "We thought the guard was trying to help the monster!"
DM: "Again--not a monster, that was your warlock patron. An important NPC."
Players: "Well you should have been more clear."
DM: "Like when I broke the fourth wall on Round One to specifically tell you that this was your warlock patron? And again on Round Two to tell you that he was immortal? And again on Round Three, to tell you that if you didn't stop you were going to die?"
Players: "...we thought you were trying to trick us."
DM: "Trick you? into not getting yourselves killed?"
Ryujin
Legend
That's precisely why they need to learn the meaning of "victory conditions." A win isn't necessarily complete obliteration of "the enemy." If you get the concessions that you want, that one thing that is actually meaningful, or whatever amount of money you deem necessary then it's a win. You don't need everything. You don't need complete capitulation. You just need what you need. If you're too centred on "winning" at all costs then you're more likely to lose, in the long run.
For example in a game of "Capture the Flag" the goal isn't to beat every opponent into unconsciousness. The goal is, as stated, to capture the flag.
Ryujin
Legend
A mayor of Toronto once brought up the idea of making Toronto a handgun free city. No sales of handguns in Toronto. Ownership of handguns in Toronto would be outlawed. "Won't this make us all safer?!" This flies in the face of two very basic concepts:
1) Firearms, in Canada, are a purview of the Federal Government.
2) Criminals don't obey laws, by definition.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Pretty much never a valid argument because if criminals don't obey laws, there would be little to no justification for ANY laws anyway. Exactly why gun control laws get singled out for this is a mystery to me.
In any case, having started typing, my choice is either to pick the side I like most here and pontificate, or to note that this isn't the thread for such discussions. I will choose discretion over pointification.
Ryujin
Legend
Sorry, I should have held back on that one because of the potential ramifications of that comment. Let's just sidetrack it to "Mississauga is a 20 minute drive from downtown Toronto" then.
- Status
Similar Threads
