D&D rules, by themselves, though, don’t help you understand much of anything else.
The influence of Charisma on social discourse, and things like intimidation and bluffing.
The role of strength vs dexterity, the difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘wisdom’.
Most natural traits, including brain makeup personality and body type are determined by genetics but some small changes can be made over time.
When it comes to performance of skills natural talent plays some part but the overwhelming majority of influence comes from which skills you learn.
Sometimes things boil down to shere dumb luck. All you can do is make the best decisions you can under uncertainty, don’t take it personally when something improbably bad happens but also minimize the expected consequences if you roll a zero.
Most things boil down to the judgement of the guy in charge. (It’s not what you know,
it is who you know, and whether you are sleeping with the GM.)
It is really hard to do stuff when it is dark.
The best way to improve your social skills is to go around killing lots of people and apply what you learn from that to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate...
:) I haven’t followed the conversation closely so I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Looking back…
I would accept it as a useful definition up to and including the first two sentences of “4”. I would replace the remainder with an acknowledgment that what qualifies as an inferential ‘bridge’ to another topic and even what qualifies as a topic proper is subject. I, for example, read the counter example and it prompted all sorts of curious and potentially fascinating subjects and even prompted pleasant memories of numerous conversations I have had that have been connected using basic probability as a stepping stone.
The influence of Charisma on social discourse, and things like intimidation and bluffing.
The role of strength vs dexterity, the difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘wisdom’.
Most natural traits, including brain makeup personality and body type are determined by genetics but some small changes can be made over time.
When it comes to performance of skills natural talent plays some part but the overwhelming majority of influence comes from which skills you learn.
Sometimes things boil down to shere dumb luck. All you can do is make the best decisions you can under uncertainty, don’t take it personally when something improbably bad happens but also minimize the expected consequences if you roll a zero.
Most things boil down to the judgement of the guy in charge. (It’s not what you know, it is who you know, and whether you are sleeping with the GM.)
It is really hard to do stuff when it is dark.
The best way to improve your social skills is to go around killing lots of people and apply what you learn from that to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate...
All right, time to beat a strategic retreat. I’m going to stop defending my thesis that JoshuaZ’s definition is rigorous.
:) I haven’t followed the conversation closely so I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Looking back…
I would accept it as a useful definition up to and including the first two sentences of “4”. I would replace the remainder with an acknowledgment that what qualifies as an inferential ‘bridge’ to another topic and even what qualifies as a topic proper is subject. I, for example, read the counter example and it prompted all sorts of curious and potentially fascinating subjects and even prompted pleasant memories of numerous conversations I have had that have been connected using basic probability as a stepping stone.