Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="soviet" data-source="post: 8668156" data-attributes="member: 6925338">Great post. It's very easy to stick to one's guns when there are no stakes and no real external considerations. Witness threads like this. How often do they end with anyone switching positions or conceding a fundamental point? Basically never, right? How often do they even end at all rather than being closed by the mods or just eventually petering out?Consider what this would look like if we were at a WotC design retreat to plan the next edition, or at a UN panel on setting a global standard of RPGing. Suddenly we can't just fold our arms and keep repeating the same platitudes. We have a real time limit and real pressure to come to an actual agreement. I might not be convinced that the DMG should have a chapter on props and funny voices, but I might be concerned about looking too obstructionist if I continue trying to block it. I might want to give in on this because I'm hoping for your support on the Types of Polearms chapter that's my  pet project. Or I might offer a compromise and suggest a couple pages on each thing in the appendix instead. The point is, we are under external pressure that make some sort of resolution necessary. 'Just talk it through, like real life' is nerd thinking. (I am also a nerd.) For one thing, the construction of your argument and the literal words you say  is only a small part of any social interaction. Body language, emotions, external pressures... these are all largely absent from our 'simulation'. The proof of this is also in the results at the table - how often does the NPC fail to be convinced about giving the PCs the hook for the next adventure? How often does an NPC get convinced to do more than was anticipated by the GM, and spill their guts completely, or give up their life of crime and come adventuring with the PCs (where this was not already a conceivable possibility)? I venture to say the answer is 'very very rarely'.</blockquote>

Verification