 Further scenarios Casting game solution in terms of deliberation renders it an internal mental process: normally opponents do not sit down together to discuss their game play in advance, but reason about the opponents’ possible actions and considerations. However, the deliberative techniques introduced above also apply to real conversational scenarios. An example related to game theory is the topic of disagreement, first introduced in an epistemic setting by Aumann’s 1976 seminal agreeing to disagree result. Dégremont and Roy (2012) investigate this topic with techniques of dynamic logic, building on classical results from Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis (1982). In this framework, any dialogue where agents keep stating whether or not they believe some formula \(\varphi\) leads to agreement in the limit model, where updates no longer have any effect. Briefly said, agents cannot disagree forever, at least when starting with different hard information, while sharing a well-founded plausibility order.