 The three strategies discussed so far suggest that, to cope with dynamic choice problems, one must either mess with one’s rationality or else somehow change the payoffs associated with the options one will face. Some philosophers—including, for example, Michael Bratman (1999; 2006), David Gauthier (1986; 1994), and Edward McClennen (1990; 1997)—have, however, suggested that the rational agent will not need to resort to such gimmicks as often as one might think—a good thing, since making the necessary arrangements can require a heavy investment of time, energy, and/or money. The key to their arguments is the idea that adopting plans can affect what it is rational for one to do even when the plans do not affect the payoffs associated with the options one will face; relatedly, their arguments incorporate the idea that rationality at least sometimes calls for resolutely sticking to a plan even if the plan disallows an action that would fit as well or better with one’s preferences than the action required by the plan. (For some interesting discussion relating resoluteness, one’s current options, and the options one will face, see Portmore 2019.) For Bratman, Gauthier, and McClennen, being resolute is not simply useful in coping with dynamic choice problems. Rather, it figures as part of a conception of rationality that resolves the theoretical puzzles concerning rationality and choice over time posed by various dynamic choice problems. In particular, it figures as part of a conception of rationality whose dictates provide intuitively sensible guidance not only in simple situations but also in challenging dynamic choice situations. (Significantly, in some of his more recent work, Bratman (2014; 2018) distances himself from the idea that rational resoluteness involves acting contrary to one’s current preferences by suggesting that when rationality calls for sticking to a plan even if this is not called for by one’s current preferences, there may be “rational pressure” to change one’s current preferences.)