PDA

View Full Version : The applicability of the Oberoni Fallacy



AjaxTorbin
2010-03-14, 11:41 PM
The Oberoni Fallacy, or argument, normally is paraphrased something like this:

‘There is no problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue with (whatever rule) because you can always Rule 0 the problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue.’

On the face of it this appears to be shallow and illogical statement; ignoring or changing something does not make it ‘disappear’ and we would agree with that position. However, as this ‘fallacy’ is used so often I shall explore it further by looking at the meaning and application of this in-depth, first with ‘Rule 0'.

`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-

Rule 0, sometimes referred to as the Golden Rule of Gaming states;
‘The arbiter of the rules may change, bend, break or add any rule he thinks will improve game-play.’

We will assume is needed for two main reasons:
1) To aid in moving the story along.
2) To see to it that the mechanics of the game are not bogged down by trivialities.

As the judge of in-game action the Storyteller or Game Master needs to have final say on what happens mechanically and thematically.



“There is no problem . . . ”

This statement when applied to a rule is an opinion no matter how many people agree with it or the inverse, ‘there is a problem . . . ’, no matter how its worded, in the end it is an opinion, and nothing more. Herein lies the rub, or beginning of the problem, discussion, or argument.

Just as any logical path started from illogic breaks down . . . any logical path started from an assumption cannot be fact. Breaking that first part down we see that there is the assumption that there is a problem and someone is disagreeing with that assumption.

What is defined as a problem? There are too many to list; it would literally be infinite. The argument here started with the assumption that this issue presents itself as a problem to a majority.

We assume that the originator has decided to address the issue with some discussion; we feel safe in that assumption because whatever opinion that led to the countering opinion of ‘there is no problem . . . ’, was made known and therefore open to debate in the first place.


“ . . . you can always Rule 0 the problem.”

This, however you want to argue it, is true. ‘Rule 0' is such a broad term in the first place that is can be applied to anything. If there is a perceived problem one direct method of resolving it is the application of rule zero. In fact, we would go so far as to say that it is the only reasonablely available response, if there is to be a response, to the problem in the first place.


Now when put together they change;
‘There is no problem because you can always Rule 0 the problem.’


The statement is conceptually true, there is no problem, once its been corrected, in this case with the application of Rule 0; in this case the person may believe that he has happened upon an application of Rule 0 that they approve of or believe they will happen upon one soon.

Taking the statement literally, declaring that there was never a problem in the first place because one can Rule 0 it away is absurd.

But again, problems are subjective, one who makes that statement may think of this ’problem’ as not deserving of the title, as so minor that it didn’t interrupt game-play in any way.
Perhaps a clearer statement in line with the idea would be, ‘there is no ‘problem’, the solution is so simple and not deserving any time devoted to it.’

We say this because as it stands the statement that ‘it was never a problem in the first place because it’s gone now’ is absurd and we have not yet encountered a gamer who would take such an illogical stand in anything other than a philosophical exercise.

Which brings me to our point in writing this in the first place.

`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-

The Oberoni Fallacy is philosophical tangent, an idea, a supposition; a tool for exploring the psyche of the gamer and the game itself not an argument or counter to an argument. If someone makes a statement similar to the idea expressed my the Oberoni Fallacy it is just that; a statement because we assume that people are not ignorant.

What we have seen in the past is a few individuals using the Fallacy as a fallback, a reason for discontinuing the discussion or as part an accusation of making excuses for the problem.
The problem being discussed is obviously a problem to someone and stating an opinion that you think its not a problem or can be dealt with easily does not necessarily follow that the issue was acceptable.


It’s a matter of time from what we have seen, the issue exists, everyone can see that it does, even if they may disagree with how much of an issue it is, but it is there for all to see. Excusing the problem in the present situation doesn’t necessarily follow excusing the fact that the problem occurred in the first place, only a realization that one cannot fix the problem in the past and people are currently aware of it. It goes without saying even. But when people say that which goes without saying it can be insulting.

`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-

Note: This work will be posted in many forums and several blogs and is not directed at any specific person or group. We will not respond with proofs or past examples because this is just an observation and dialog on what I have seen and most of the discussions I speak of are best left undisturbed.

~This will be a continuing work and will change as new issues and opinions come to light, and we welcome any all discussion relating, however tangential, to topic~

Authors;
Anonymous
ATHMASTER
Ajax Torbin
Enders Legacy
THULSA DOOM

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-03-15, 12:14 AM
I'm not saying this happens every time, but a lot of the time the argument goes like this:

OP: Hi Playground, I was wondering if [system X] was a fun system to play.

A: [System X] is broken because of [some theoretical trick].

B: You can't indict all of [System X] just because of one dirty trick. It would never even see play. If you tried that trick in an actual game, the GM would [enact some sort of violence upon your person], and rightly so.

A: Oberoni Fallacy! Just because a DM could houserule the trick away doesn't mean it's not broken in the first place.

IMO in this (strawmanish I admit) example it's A who's falling back to the Oberoni Fallacy and attempting to end the discussion by citing it when it's not really appropriate. A is tacitly arguing that the system is flawed because of some dirty trick. B is responding to that argument not by saying there never was a theoretical problem, but by saying that theoretical problem has never and never will manifest itself in actual play. The merit of such an empirical claim relies less on logical construction and more on the circumstances of the system and the dirty trick involved.

For instance, if the OP was talking about 3.5 and the aforementioned trick was "If you play a Druid and take Natural Spell, you will teh pwnzor," B wouldn't have much ground to stand on. Banning or heavily altering druids isn't an automatic thing IME. If the dirty trick is "Play Pun Pun," then B is right,, "Oberoni Fallacy" or not.

In fact, a lot of the time people invoking Oberoni Fallacy are just wrong. If B simply rephrases his argument to say "sure, there is a theoretical problem but it won't matter in play," then he's explicitly avoiding any self-defeating implication of his argument, but that doesn't stop A from pretending B is logically wrong.

Runestar
2010-03-15, 12:25 AM
To me, it seems more like an issue of semantics.

I just need to say "Yes, normally, I agree that a wizard abusing gate to bring in solars and pyroclastic dragons might be a problem. However, I am sure I can work with my players to come to a mutual agreement on how not to abuse the spell".

Just acknowledge the issue and move on. :smallsmile:

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 12:26 AM
It's generally most accurate and most useful when discussing the theory of the game rather than the application (eg, monks are balanced when compared to wizards, because the DM wouldn't allow the wizard ability X, or would provide the monk buff Y), but it also applies when discussing the overall merit of a game as you are indicating. If the entire game must be houseruled or rule zeroed to function, then there is an evident problem with the game. That you can play something else instead is not an indication that there is no problem, and in fact it would fall explicitly into that fallacy in that case.

Of course, this means that the fallacy shouldn't be evoked over a single flaw or similar that is not a necessary mechanic of the game, but rather when the flaws become so apparant that the game as written is non-functional.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 03:22 AM
I disagree. I believe Oberoni Fallacy is alive and true.

Why? Because there are many DMs, and many levels of competency and skill.

Beginning DMs won't see the problems, or not nearly all of them. Such problems will be stumbling blocks to their campaign and will be learned one painful lesson at a time.

Then there's differences between opinion of power levels. Doubt this? Peruse the next weekly ToB thread.

In short? Rule 2 of Robotics. A robot may not through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

That's what rule 0 is. An attempt to fix everything by a good enough "processor" (the DM) protecting the "humans" (the game).

The sad fact is, most processors are faulty. Relying on a person to change the rules only underscores the fallibility of the rules. In the most obvious cases, there may be a point. In the most obvious cases, most beginning DM's never think of it. Example: Monks and unarmed strike proficiency (or lack thereof).

In other words, in most cases where you're right, you're bringing up the pointless. In most cases you're wrong, it's because most DM's don't start with an intimate knowledge of the rules and the proper way to houserule them for balance.

JaronK
2010-03-15, 03:37 AM
Hmm, usually when I see the Oberoni Fallacy it's more like this:

A: Fighters are awesome, because you can be a dashing swordsman and daring military leader, while leading your party to glory!
B: Actually, Fighters only fight. They have no skills to make them great leaders. No diplomacy, no knowledges, nothing.
A: Just roleplay it! The DM lets you do that, there's no need to roll.

That's pretty standard. The other common one:

Wizards aren't that powerful, because DMs won't let them do broken stuff.

JaronK

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-03-15, 04:09 AM
In the most obvious cases, most beginning DM's never think of it. Example: Monks and unarmed strike proficiency (or lack thereof).But... monks and unarmed strike proficiency is almost universally (and perhaps unwittingly by many) house-ruled to make it work*. If someone came into a thread and said D&D is dumb because Monks aren't proficient with their own fists, it would be a perfectly valid response to ask "Does any DM actually rule that?"

That said, the more general and complex the issues a system has, the less likely it is that there's some obvious solution that everyone uses. That doesn't mean invoking Rule 0 is a fallacy (as Rule 0 can work just fine, like in the above monk example); it just means invoking Rule 0 doesn't work in the case of an issue like overall balance in high level 3.5 D&D, or almost any complex system for that matter.

*By "work" I mean "work as well as monks do normally"

taltamir
2010-03-15, 04:14 AM
I'm not saying this happens every time, but a lot of the time the argument goes like this:

OP: Hi Playground, I was wondering if [system X] was a fun system to play.

A: [System X] is broken because of [some theoretical trick].

B: You can't indict all of [System X] just because of one dirty trick. It would never even see play. If you tried that trick in an actual game, the GM would [enact some sort of violence upon your person], and rightly so.

A: Oberoni Fallacy! Just because a DM could houserule the trick away doesn't mean it's not broken in the first place.

In this case B would but right. However I don't think I have ever seen THAT.
What I see is:

OP: Hi Playground, I was wondering if [system X] was a fun system to play.

A: [System X] is broken because there is no inherent class balance and you will get completely different power levels (with many in the group being useless and sitting on the sidelines) unless experts intentionally min max towards the same power goal. Also it has a ton of very obvious tricks (available only to a specific subset of classes) that break the entire world, and it breaks verisimilitude that nobody is using them (or it breaks the world if people are). Finally, the mechanics themselves lend to unfun gameplay, with too much time spent on handling numbers, situations, exceptions, etc. with the inability to do many basic things, etc etc etc.

B: Yea but the DM can fix all of these if he micromanages the every tiny aspect of the game and rewrites over half the rules in the game.

A: Oberoni Fallacy! Just because a DM could houserule every single issue away doesn't mean that the system isn't broken in the first place. The DM is faced with an impossible and overwhelming task of rewriting vast portions of the system, he might as well start from scratch or use a different, better system.


A perfect example is the epic level handbook, particularly epic spellcasting. As written it is completely worthless, costing millions of gp and hundreds of thousands of XP to duplicate middling spells (5th level or so) without mitigating factors, there is no reason to ever use it unless you use mitigating factors. if you do use mitigating factors fully half of them allow you to break the world (give yourself arbitrary bonus, arbitrary amount of minions, etc etc). Also, ironically, leveling up past 21 gives you no benefit at all whatsoever. Since you always wish to mitigate something to 0DC and thus free. The issue becomes a matter of ingenuity, time, and amount of resources you have hoarded..

taltamir
2010-03-15, 04:26 AM
I disagree. I believe Oberoni Fallacy is alive and true.

Why? Because there are many DMs, and many levels of competency and skill.

Beginning DMs won't see the problems, or not nearly all of them. Such problems will be stumbling blocks to their campaign and will be learned one painful lesson at a time.

Then there's differences between opinion of power levels. Doubt this? Peruse the next weekly ToB thread.

In short? Rule 2 of Robotics. A robot may not through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

That's what rule 0 is. An attempt to fix everything by a good enough "processor" (the DM) protecting the "humans" (the game).

The sad fact is, most processors are faulty. Relying on a person to change the rules only underscores the fallibility of the rules. In the most obvious cases, there may be a point. In the most obvious cases, most beginning DM's never think of it. Example: Monks and unarmed strike proficiency (or lack thereof).

In other words, in most cases where you're right, you're bringing up the pointless. In most cases you're wrong, it's because most DM's don't start with an intimate knowledge of the rules and the proper way to houserule them for balance.

that is another very important issue. Every DM will tell you that certain systems have issues... For the more problematic systems, every DM will make alterations... So the question is then, what does get houseruled and how? now it entirely depends on the skill of the DM in system creation.
When a company buys an operating system, it doesn't want to have over half of it broken and non functional and require them to have their non programmers staff "fix it as they use it"
this is especially the case if the person doing the fixing ISN'T an expert in the field. If playing system X requires expert players and expert DMs holding it together with patch after cobbled patch then the system is broken ad you should use a superior system where you can just play it. (or at least, have to use less houserules to play it)

Kurald Galain
2010-03-15, 04:47 AM
Essentially, we have four situations:

(1) something is not a problem in the rules, nor in gameplay. For instance, BAB. It's a rule that just works, and this is the ideal situation.

(2) the rules as written are technically fine, but cause problems in gameplay. For instance, the oft-overlooked limit on psionic power points you can spend on one activation. This is generally the result of unclear or misunderstood rules.

(3) the rules have technical problems, but this won't cause an issue in gameplay. For instance, the often cited "healing people by drowning them" in 3E. Yes, it's technically allowed, but it's so patently ridiculous that you'd be hard-pressed to find a DM that doesn't handwave it (and might not even realize he's doing it). Another example is the monk's proficiency with unarmed attacks.

(4) the rules have technical problems, and this also causes an issue in gameplay. A good example is 3E wizards: they are (mostly) fine in play as long as you ban a particular subset of spells. The problem is that this fix is neither obvious nor common knowledge, and indeed that opinions differ vastly as to what the fix should be.

The issue, really, is the difference between case 3 and 4. In case 3, saying "just fix it" is perfectly fine, as either the fix is obvious, or the problem came from deliberately taking rules out of context in the first place. In case 4, saying "just fix it" is really an Oberoni fallacy, as a random DM may not be aware of what he should fix or how he should fix it; this indicates a very real problem in the ruleset.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 04:58 AM
Essentially, we have four situations:

(1) something is not a problem in the rules, nor in gameplay. For instance, BAB. It's a rule that just works, and this is the ideal situation.

(2) the rules as written are technically fine, but cause problems in gameplay. For instance, the oft-overlooked limit on psionic power points you can spend on one activation. This is generally the result of unclear or misunderstood rules.

(3) the rules have technical problems, but this won't cause an issue in gameplay. For instance, the often cited "healing people by drowning them" in 3E. Yes, it's technically allowed, but it's so patently ridiculous that you'd be hard-pressed to find a DM that doesn't handwave it (and might not even realize he's doing it). Another example is the monk's proficiency with unarmed attacks.

(4) the rules have technical problems, and this also causes an issue in gameplay. A good example is 3E wizards: they are (mostly) fine in play as long as you ban a particular subset of spells. The problem is that this fix is neither obvious nor common knowledge, and indeed that opinions differ vastly as to what the fix should be.

The issue, really, is the difference between case 3 and 4. In case 3, saying "just fix it" is perfectly fine, as either the fix is obvious, or the problem came from deliberately taking rules out of context in the first place. In case 4, saying "just fix it" is really an Oberoni fallacy, as a random DM may not be aware of what he should fix or how he should fix it; this indicates a very real problem in the ruleset.

Exactly.

Example 1 is the easily understood.
Example 2 is the balanced and correct, but often overlooked rules that cause imbalance when NOT applied.
Example 3 is the things that are easily fixed, or obvious cases of RAW vs RAI.
Example 4 is the problematic area. Things that require a more technical understanding to be able to fix.

Most beginning DM's run afoul of 2 and 4. And saying that two isn't a problem because it's written correctly may be true in a sense, but it's also false in a sense. After all, the number one rule of writing is: Write to the audience. If you've got something that's more technical than the audience is savvy to, then you have a problem.

And saying that 4 isn't a problem because it can be fixed is Oberoni. You assume people will easily see it, and correct it, and that is simply not always the case.

Saying a set of instructions for assembling an Entertainment center is fine because any errors can be seen and corrected by a qualified handyman is a fallacy. Why? Because not everyone who buys that entertainment center is a qualified handyman. And for those people? There's a problem.

Just because it can be fixed doesn't mean there's not a problem. If there were not a problem, you wouldn't have to waste time and energy identifying the issue and fixing it.

taltamir
2010-03-15, 05:11 AM
Kurald Galain, PhoenixRivers, very nice and eloquent analysis on your part. You said it much better than I have.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 07:28 AM
I guess it depends on the system.

To me its sad that they didn't include rule 0 in 3.0/3.5 as they did in older editions.

Optimystik
2010-03-15, 07:36 AM
I guess it depends on the system.

To me its sad that they didn't include rule 0 in 3.0/3.5 as they did in older editions.

Did they need to? It kind of goes without saying.

Also, kudos to KG and PR for a great summary.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-15, 07:39 AM
I guess it depends on the system.

To me its sad that they didn't include rule 0 in 3.0/3.5 as they did in older editions.

I for one, am pleased that they did not. It gets taken too far. Some DMs believe it gives them a license to do absolutely anything, player opinion be damned.

The more sane of us realize that what we can or can't do to modify a system is restricted only by what works, and what our group likes, not by what the book says we can modify.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 07:40 AM
i think it changes the dynamic and expectation of a system.
Rule 0 to alot of newer players doesn't exist they don't understand.

I know the only reason i'm ok with people storying away an issue or changing some thing to fit a story arc is becuase i used to play 2nd ed and the dm player trust was different.

Now i worry with other gms when they change something if they are taking away some sort of balance factor.


@Tyndmyr: I agree that on the extreme opposite gms do take it to far. Though the printing of rule 0 or not make this fallacy not work for 3.5 as rule 0 by RAW doesn't exist.

Optimystik
2010-03-15, 07:42 AM
i think it changes the dynamic and expectation of a system.
Rule 0 to alot of newer players doesn't exist they don't understand.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was intentional. WotC knew that the health of the game would not be improved by newer DMs wielding an iron fist over their players instead of working with them.

Codifying Rule 0 is just asking for newer DMs to just flip to the page it's written on and point to it anytime they feel up for some railroading... which would cause newer players to get fed up with the game, and quit playing before they give it a chance.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Tyndmyr

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 07:49 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if that was intentional. WotC knew that the health of the game would not be improved by newer DMs wielding an iron fist over their players instead of working with them.

Codifying Rule 0 is just asking for newer DMs to just flip to the page it's written on and point to it anytime they feel up for some railroading... which would cause newer players to get fed up with the game, and quit playing before they give it a chance.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Tyndmyr

I don't know I still feel divided on the subject of rule 0. On one hand i love the fact that 3.x doesn't have it. though a good gm in 2nd ed didn't realy need it. and i do sometimes see the justification of changing a rule to make the game better.

I think theres an unwritten rule of ethics when it comes to rule 0, that alot of new gms don't understand.


Though BY RAW the Oberoni Fallacy doesn't work in 3.x.

Optimystik
2010-03-15, 08:03 AM
I think theres an unwritten rule of ethics when it comes to rule 0, that alot of new gms don't understand.

All the better not to write down the rule then, since the ethics on its use are also unwritten.

Indon
2010-03-15, 08:10 AM
Another significant point is that what one player may consider a problem, another might not. Game balance is a readily-available example of this: Some players expect mechanical balance in their games out of the box, while others are looking for other things in their games instead.

So while some might claim that 3.5 D&D is flawed because of the existence of the tier system, and cite that the ability of DMs and players to take steps to put a campaign into a common 'power level' of optimization does not mitigate this flaw, others might not consider it a flaw in the first place, but instead an opportunity to play campaigns of differing power level without needing to change systems.

This can be demonstrated in other ways, as well: when 4E D&D was released, class mechanics were not exactly diverse (though time and further sourcebooks have improved this). For an individual who considers this a problem, a claim that players and DMs can spice characters up without invoking the game's mechanics could be considered an invocation of the fallacy.


Also, something else we should keep in mind is that some systems are meant to be more houserulable than others. In D&D verions 3 and beyond, DM involvement is not heavily mentioned and is probably not intended. The DM resolves game mechanics, but is not meant to heavily arbitrate the game's rules. Comparatively, Exalted frequently mentions houserules and other steps STs can take to modify their games, and large portions of the core setting consist of a few examples with the implication that Storytellers should push up their sleeves and get to homebrewing.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-15, 08:53 AM
Is it that time of the Month?
Are we going to discuss the Jelly Moo principle next?

taltamir
2010-03-15, 08:57 AM
I guess it depends on the system.

To me its sad that they didn't include rule 0 in 3.0/3.5 as they did in older editions.

odd, I Was certain it was in the DMG.
Also, it is indeed often taken wayyyy too far. Or attempted by DMs who are not all that good at creating game systems. This is why I want a well written game system done by professional that doesn't require massive rewrites. That way the DM need only be a good judge and story teller, not a good judge, storyteller, and game designer.

Emmerask
2010-03-15, 09:01 AM
Is it that time of the Month?
Are we going to discuss the Jelly Moo principle next?

I want to know more about this jelly moo :mitd:

Indon
2010-03-15, 09:02 AM
odd, I Was certain it was in the DMG.

Rule 0 is mentioned, but not significantly elaborated on, and honestly it feels successively more like an afterthought in successively later versions of the game.

taltamir
2010-03-15, 09:03 AM
I want to know more about this jelly moo :mitd:

I do too, I have never heard THAT one before.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 09:04 AM
odd, I Was certain it was in the DMG.
Also, it is indeed often taken wayyyy too far. Or attempted by DMs who are not all that good at creating game systems. This is why I want a well written game system done by professional that doesn't require massive rewrites. That way the DM need only be a good judge and story teller, not a good judge, storyteller, and game designer.

no its not int he DMG.
In secound ed it was in the preface int he players guide.

I agree about the well written system.
Though out of curiousity did you ever play 2nd ed and or what did you think of the system it self?

I think a system that has a simple core and a bunch of optional rules added on allows for more flexibility on the system and GM. Though i do have to admit some of the "optional" rules where not very well thought out in 2nd ed.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-15, 09:10 AM
The fallacy is exactly what it's advertised to be.

Yeah, it gets misused occasionally. Some people just love the word fallacy, and are under the impression that calling someone elses argument a fallacy automatically makes them win the thread and one free internet, without having to actually adress the contents of the post they disagree with.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-15, 09:43 AM
Yeah, it gets misused occasionally. Some people just love the word fallacy, and are under the impression that calling someone elses argument a fallacy automatically makes them win the thread and one free internet, without having to actually adress the contents of the post they disagree with.

We should call that the Fallacy Fallacy :smalltongue: Or perhaps the Metafallacy.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:05 AM
no its not int he DMG.
In secound ed it was in the preface int he players guide.

I agree about the well written system.
Though out of curiousity did you ever play 2nd ed and or what did you think of the system it self?

I think a system that has a simple core and a bunch of optional rules added on allows for more flexibility on the system and GM. Though i do have to admit some of the "optional" rules where not very well thought out in 2nd ed.

It's actually touched on.


You are the master of the game--the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely.


When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel


The Bottom Line
You're in charge. This is not being in charge as in telling everyone what to do. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens. That kind of being in charge.


Beyond simply adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That's okay. However, changing the rules is a challenge for a DM with only a little experience.
(Note: This one calls out what me and KG were talking about. Less experienced DMs are actually discouraged from modifying rules, which is where the best application of Oberoni lies.)


You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.

They put in a lot of additional text, telling you to use Rule 0 responsibly, but it's there. A lot.

EDIT: All quotes came from the DMG, version 3.5 (well, except for that first one by Ragnarok).

AstralFire
2010-03-15, 10:08 AM
The fallacy is exactly what it's advertised to be.

Yeah, it gets misused occasionally. Some people just love the word fallacy, and are under the impression that calling someone elses argument a fallacy automatically makes them win the thread and one free internet, without having to actually adress the contents of the post they disagree with.

I've noticed quite a few logical fallacies don't actually undermine the validity of the argument, honestly.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:09 AM
I've noticed quite a few logical fallacies don't actually undermine the validity of the argument, honestly.

True. Logical fallacies that are tangental to an argument, and don't alter the validity of the logical chain don't.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 10:10 AM
It's actually touched on.








(Note: This one calls out what me and KG were talking about. Less experienced DMs are actually discouraged from modifying rules, which is where the best application of Oberoni lies.)



They put in a lot of additional text, telling you to use Rule 0 responsibly, but it's there. A lot.

EDIT: All quotes came from the DMG, version 3.5 (well, except for that first one by Ragnarok).

Fair enough. I havn't read the dmg in a long time. Though i have to admit having verbage like that in the PHB from a players perspective would be good. I know alot of players who have just read the phb have a hard time grasping this concept. and expect rules to be done BY RAW.


I however stand corrected about it not being in the DMG.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:16 AM
Fair enough. I havn't read the dmg in a long time. Though i have to admit having verbage like that in the PHB from a players perspective would be good. I know alot of players who have just read the phb have a hard time grasping this concept. and expect rules to be done BY RAW.


I however stand corrected about it not being in the DMG.

The DMG also states that it's the DM's job to teach players the rules. Including that one, I'd wager.

The PHb has very little on the subject, being limited to basically the following:
The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventures.

CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group.

(yes, I've dealt with my fair share of rules lawyers in my years as a DM, lol. It's almost sad that I know the locations of all that from memory.)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 10:18 AM
The DMG also states that it's the DM's job to teach players the rules. Including that one, I'd wager.

The PHb has very little on the subject, being limited to basically the following:

stilol not enough in My opinion.

In secound ed they begain the PHB with the GM's word is Law pritty much.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:22 AM
stilol not enough in My opinion.

In secound ed they begain the PHB with the GM's word is Law pritty much.

As I said, the PHB is limited.

I have handed problem players the DMG, told them to open it to page 18, and read aloud the first two sentences under the first heading on the page.

They then say, "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."

My response? "Now that that's resolved, let's move on, shall we?"

Thereafter, all you need to say is "Page 18", for people that try to haggle you at the table.

NOTE: I do listen to players. This is only a technique to be used with problem players, ones that try to haggle rules for 10 minutes at the table.

AstralFire
2010-03-15, 10:28 AM
True. Logical fallacies that are tangental to an argument, and don't alter the validity of the logical chain don't.

I sort of see many logical fallacies as only reducing an argument's strength to circumstantial rather than direct evidence, if that makes sense. This is, of course, discounting logical fallacies on the order of "because you like chimneys, you must hate music."

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 10:30 AM
As I said, the PHB is limited.

I have handed problem players the DMG, told them to open it to page 18, and read aloud the first two sentences under the first heading on the page.

They then say, "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."

My response? "Now that that's resolved, let's move on, shall we?"

Thereafter, all you need to say is "Page 18", for people that try to haggle you at the table.

NOTE: I do listen to players. This is only a technique to be used with problem players, ones that try to haggle rules for 10 minutes at the table.

And my response to that would be I'm a player the rules for the game are in the PHB not the DMG thats a guide for DMG's not for me. Then I would refer you to the SRD where it doesn't state that in the core rules. heh
I've had people argue with me about rule zero. again in 3.x i don't belive it exists. or so much as it existed in older editions. it may be in the DMG but when i fist started i prefered my players to stay out of the DMG.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:31 AM
I sort of see many logical fallacies as only reducing an argument's strength to circumstantial rather than direct evidence, if that makes sense. This is, of course, discounting logical fallacies on the order of "because you like chimneys, you must hate music."

But I don't like chimneys. Active fireplaces lower the ambient temperature of outlying rooms of a house.

Indon
2010-03-15, 10:31 AM
The fallacy is exactly what it's advertised to be.

And, based on one of my earlier points, can itself contain a fallacious implication (specifically, a non sequitur).

The Fallacy essentially says, "The ability of a DM to modify a system does not change the system's properties," which is true. But it is generally also used, even in legitimate usage, to say, "I like X property of a system and if the system lacks this property it is a problem with the system."

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 10:34 AM
And my response to that would be I'm a player the rules for the game are in the PHB not the DMG thats a guide for DMG's not for me. Then I would refer you to the SRD where it doesn't state that in the core rules. heh
I've had people argue with me about rule zero. again in 3.x i don't belive it exists. or so much as it existed in older editions. it may be in the DMG but when i fist started i prefered my players to stay out of the DMG.

Last player that tried to argue Rule 0 with me came across a level 20 wizard when he was level 7. When he protested his swift death, I mentioned that the guidelines for encounter creation were in the DMG, and, as he so eloquently stated, was thus out of his purview.

DM's have more toys in their bag than players. It is never in a player's interest to get in a urination contest.

I don't use "Rocks Fall" (unless the high level assassin uses earthquake in a cave). I simply use the tools I need to assert the boundaries of the game.

Typically, after such an event happens, I inform a player that resurrections will be available once he or she concedes that I control the game's rules and arbitration.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 10:44 AM
Last player that tried to argue Rule 0 with me came across a level 20 wizard when he was level 7. When he protested his swift death, I mentioned that the guidelines for encounter creation were in the DMG, and, as he so eloquently stated, was thus out of his purview.

DM's have more toys in their bag than players. It is never in a player's interest to get in a urination contest.

I don't use "Rocks Fall" (unless the high level assassin uses earthquake in a cave). I simply use the tools I need to assert the boundaries of the game.

Typically, after such an event happens, I inform a player that resurrections will be available once he or she concedes that I control the game's rules and arbitration.

I guess... I would however point out that you would need to follow the DMG as it is the Dungion masters guide not the players guide.

and then i would promptly quit. I once quit a gm who kept abusing the rule 0 effect and wouldn't realy listen to other arguments about rules calls or effects like that. I said to them i want to play d20 not <insert gm name> d20.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-03-15, 11:16 AM
This is, of course, discounting logical fallacies on the order of "because you like chimneys, you must hate music."

This would be an example of the Santa Fallacy.


I guess... I would however point out that you would need to follow the DMG as it is the Dungion masters guide not the players guide.

and then i would promptly quit. I once quit a gm who kept abusing the rule 0 effect and wouldn't realy listen to other arguments about rules calls or effects like that. I said to them i want to play d20 not <insert gm name> d20.

I'm generally open to debate if anyone questions a rule call. I (or rather, my group) prefer consensus on rule calls (if a rule has to get zeroed, don't grind anyone's gears). Then again, my group's not the norm. I've played in games where the DM made a bad call (you can't move after a total defense -> a holdover from 3.0 maybe? -> I mistakenly called it a 'Full Defense' and I think that's where he got the 'Full Action' idea), and I gave him the page reference for it. He looked it over, and made what I'm pretty sure was the snap judgement call "Well in MY game, it's a full-round action" and he was a little snippy for the next 2 hours.

I'm of the opinion that a system should get merrits based on how little the DM has to rule 0 (I've yet to come accross an airtight ruleset).

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 11:22 AM
This would be an example of the Santa Fallacy.



I'm generally open to debate if anyone questions a rule call. I (or rather, my group) prefer consensus on rule calls (if a rule has to get zeroed, don't grind anyone's gears). Then again, my group's not the norm. I've played in games where the DM made a bad call (you can't move after a total defense -> a holdover from 3.0 maybe? -> I mistakenly called it a 'Full Defense' and I think that's where he got the 'Full Action' idea), and I gave him the page reference for it. He looked it over, and made what I'm pretty sure was the snap judgement call "Well in MY game, it's a full-round action" and he was a little snippy for the next 2 hours.

I'm of the opinion that a system should get merrits based on how little the DM has to rule 0 (I've yet to come accross an airtight ruleset).

As a GM i am to. We have the house rules that i'f im stumped on how to rule on something we dice off for a ruling and continue on with the understanding that if we find said rule or when i have more time to look at it, it could change. seems to work for us. Only realy came up about 1-2 since we enacted the rule.
The last part i agree with totaly.

Kylarra
2010-03-15, 11:31 AM
And my response to that would be I'm a player the rules for the game are in the PHB not the DMG thats a guide for DMG's not for me. Then I would refer you to the SRD where it doesn't state that in the core rules. hehMy response would be," Okay, don't let the door hit you on the way out. :smallsmile:"

If you don't want to believe that the GM has final say over what does and doesn't go, you can go play your own game.


Note: the above does not absolve the GM of their responsibilities to the player nor does the above poster believe the GM should willy-nilly change things because they can. Any assertions of either will be laughed at.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 11:37 AM
My response would be," Okay, don't let the door hit you on the way out. :smallsmile:"

If you don't want to believe that the GM has final say over what does and doesn't go, you can go play your own game.


Note: the above does not absolve the GM of their responsibilities to the player nor does the above poster believe the GM should willy-nilly change things because they can. Any assertions of either will be laughed at.

Lol ya i agree from a GM standpoint i would prolly say the same thing. though i don't like when gms make decisions that hugely effect balance or game play or invalidate a character due to a ruling. which a few of my past gm's had done a few times.

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 11:40 AM
My response would be," Okay, don't let the door hit you on the way out. :smallsmile:"

If you don't want to believe that the GM has final say over what does and doesn't go, you can go play your own game.


Note: the above does not absolve the GM of their responsibilities to the player nor does the above poster believe the GM should willy-nilly change things because they can. Any assertions of either will be laughed at.

Sadly enough though, the same assertion comes up when the DM is making unreasonable rulings, just as much as a DM with reasonable rulings can make that statement.

Kylarra
2010-03-15, 11:48 AM
Sadly enough though, the same assertion comes up when the DM is making unreasonable rulings, just as much as a DM with reasonable rulings can make that statement.Same thing can be said for players and RAW though. Jerk attitudes aren't limited to GMs.

As the arbitrator of the game, as far as that game is concerned, they are ultimately "correct". Someone needs to make the final call else the game will go nowhere. This doesn't mean that it's the most optimal or best action to take, or even that they'd be correct from a logical PoV.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 11:50 AM
I guess... I would however point out that you would need to follow the DMG as it is the Dungion masters guide not the players guide.

and then i would promptly quit. I once quit a gm who kept abusing the rule 0 effect and wouldn't realy listen to other arguments about rules calls or effects like that. I said to them i want to play d20 not <insert gm name> d20.

You'd be welcome to quit. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. If a player is unwilling to recognize the authority of the DM over rules matters, and attempts to play pedantic games, stating that rules in the DMG don't apply to him, because he's not the DM?

Then he's not welcome at my table.

At my table, I handle things as the DMG recommends. As close to RAW as is possible. All changes and deviations are consistent and in keeping with general common sense.

And if a dispute takes more than 30 seconds total for one sides to show their point, it's handled during a game break, not during game play. The occasional deviation from this is ok (I don't mind if it happens once every other session), but once I make a ruling, that's it. If anyone has an issue, they can bring it up during down time.

Those are my starting rules, and they're all DMG recommended. If a player does not wish to follow them, then he's welcome to quit the game, because I don't want such a player disrupting the game for everyone else.

This nonsense about players ignoring rules because of the book they're in? Rubbish.

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 11:57 AM
Same thing can be said for players and RAW though. Jerk attitudes aren't limited to GMs.

As the arbitrator of the game, as far as that game is concerned, they are ultimately "correct". Someone needs to make the final call else the game will go nowhere. This doesn't mean that it's the most optimal or best action to take, or even that they'd be correct from a logical PoV.

RAW isn't a supposed "authority" on how things will be run though, so while I agree that players can be jerks, it has nothing to do with the rules as played. Players who argue that the DM isn't following RAW clearly have no basis for what they're arguing. They aren't really what I'm referring to however.

However, when they complain that something isn't fair (concept is destroyed due to rules change, monsters arbitrarily or unfairly inflated in whatever capacity, rocks fall, punitive in game measures for OOC complaints, DMs who make inconsistent use of houserules etc.) a DM who simply cites rule 0 at them is doing a disservice to the players, and in those instances, it's unreasonable for them to demand a player to take it or leave it, as opposed to fully explaining the rules change and reaching a compromise. In the capacity of what is fair, and what is fun, the DM is certainly not an arbiter, even if it is ultimately his call to make, player input should be valued more than the citation of rule 0.

I don't deny that players have to abide by the rulings of the DM or leave, ultimately. I'm just pointing out that the statement "take it or leave it" doesn't just apply to DMs who are reasonable, but to unreasonable ones as well.

Kylarra
2010-03-15, 12:06 PM
However, when they complain that something isn't fair (concept is destroyed due to rules change, monsters arbitrarily or unfairly inflated in whatever capacity, rocks fall, punitive in game measures for OOC complaints, DMs who make inconsistent use of houserules etc.) a DM who simply cites rule 0 at them is doing a disservice to the players, and in those instances, it's unreasonable for them to demand a player to take it or leave it, as opposed to fully explaining the rules change and reaching a compromise. In the capacity of what is fair, and what is fun, the DM is certainly not an arbiter, even if it is ultimately his call to make, player input should be valued more than the citation of rule 0.

I don't deny that players have to abide by the rulings of the DM or leave, ultimately. I'm just pointing out that the statement "take it or leave it" doesn't just apply to DMs who are reasonable, but to unreasonable ones as well.That's not something I'd disagree with. I already said in my original statement that I stand by the GM's responsibility to his or her players. However, after taking in other input, sometimes unpopular calls will need to be made, and that's when the players need to realize that the GM is the ultimate arbiter for the game.

And players being pedantic as RagnaroksChosen's hypothetical player? Aren't anyone that I'd want to game with. They'd be gone in a heartbeat unless directly followed by some clear indication that they were joking.


edit: because I don't want to be made a liar, here's my laughing. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

Frosty
2010-03-15, 12:32 PM
If the fix is EASY and/or obvious, then it really isn't a big problem. Yeah Pun-Pun is technically game-breaking. However, it has zero impact in real, ACTUAL games, no matter how many times a forum poster screams "FALLACY!"

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 01:03 PM
If the fix is EASY and/or obvious, then it really isn't a big problem. Yeah Pun-Pun is technically game-breaking. However, it has zero impact in real, ACTUAL games, no matter how many times a forum poster screams "FALLACY!"

I know of a couple beginning DM's that didn't know what Pazuzu was, that allowed it when a player asked, without revealing what he was trying to do.

Kylarra
2010-03-15, 01:06 PM
I know of a couple beginning DM's that didn't know what Pazuzu was, that allowed it when a player asked, without revealing what he was trying to do.Well, even in those cases, you still have the wish to shaft them with, but yeah. That's just being a jerk. :smallyuk: I'm pretty upfront when my players ask things like that. "What are you trying to do?"

Gametime
2010-03-15, 01:09 PM
I know of a couple beginning DM's that didn't know what Pazuzu was, that allowed it when a player asked, without revealing what he was trying to do.

I've resolved that Pazuzu in my campaigns is going to be a colossal **** with an irrational hatred for kobolds. Anyone else who summons him is going to get the standard "wish granted for later temptations" response, but a kobold is going to be dragged straight into the Abyss for an eternity of torment.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 01:13 PM
You'd be welcome to quit. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. If a player is unwilling to recognize the authority of the DM over rules matters, and attempts to play pedantic games, stating that rules in the DMG don't apply to him, because he's not the DM?

Then he's not welcome at my table.

At my table, I handle things as the DMG recommends. As close to RAW as is possible. All changes and deviations are consistent and in keeping with general common sense.

And if a dispute takes more than 30 seconds total for one sides to show their point, it's handled during a game break, not during game play. The occasional deviation from this is ok (I don't mind if it happens once every other session), but once I make a ruling, that's it. If anyone has an issue, they can bring it up during down time.

Those are my starting rules, and they're all DMG recommended. If a player does not wish to follow them, then he's welcome to quit the game, because I don't want such a player disrupting the game for everyone else.

This nonsense about players ignoring rules because of the book they're in? Rubbish.

I'm not saying that a GM doesn't have athority but I belive that RAW should be paramount in 3.5 because its realies so much on it. Taking away a rule arbitrailary or because one thinks its overpower, to me is not a good enough reason. Mabye I'm jaded from newbie GM's, not sure. But I have walked away from games where GM's would change rules because of what they though about the game and not what was correct.

Just like when i make a character and you read the rules for it you expect it to work one way then when a gm changes it on you kinda ruins it. Though on the otherhand i have had GM's through out large portions of games(white wolf specificaly) and run it with no problems.

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 01:35 PM
That's not something I'd disagree with. I already said in my original statement that I stand by the GM's responsibility to his or her players. However, after taking in other input, sometimes unpopular calls will need to be made, and that's when the players need to realize that the GM is the ultimate arbiter for the game.

True, but the two DMs that I and the rest of the players walked away from failed to realize is that the DM is only the ultimate arbiter by grace of the players.

I dislike that rule 0 is in some way official, and so often given as some justification of authority mostly because I prefer democracy. I understand its place, but I think it's overused, and too often abused, when in my opinion, compromise and rational justification with democratic processes and decisions work better. In the cases where I DM, I don't make any change without consent of the players, for instance, and I can't actually justify ad hoc handing out an edict, even when the players are misguided in trying to shoot down a particular houserule. Most people are fairly reasonable when you explain the full rationale behind a new rule, and if they point out a reason why I might be wrong, then that's a good reason to alter it to adress that complaint while maintaining the essence of the rule change otherwise.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-15, 01:38 PM
I dislike that rule 0 is in some way official, and so often given as some justification of authority mostly because I prefer democracy.

I think D&D is more a Republic than a Democracy. But I agree, I'd perfer it not to be Communist (/Oligarchy).

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 01:42 PM
I'm not saying that a GM doesn't have athority but I belive that RAW should be paramount in 3.5 because its realies so much on it. Taking away a rule arbitrailary or because one thinks its overpower, to me is not a good enough reason. Mabye I'm jaded from newbie GM's, not sure. But I have walked away from games where GM's would change rules because of what they though about the game and not what was correct.

Just like when i make a character and you read the rules for it you expect it to work one way then when a gm changes it on you kinda ruins it. Though on the otherhand i have had GM's through out large portions of games(white wolf specificaly) and run it with no problems.

RAW should not be the most important thing in a game. If a player builds a character on a blatantly abusive mechanic/feature, and it's ruled to not work afterwards, that's their fault. They attempted to use a broken mechanic, and expect not to be overruled.

That said, to give you an idea on how rare that is in my games? One of my games featured an Incantatrix, a Shadowcraft mage, and early entry psychic theurge, and an Initiate of the Seven Veils.

The only houserules I had were that for incantatrix, no individual metamagic feat could have a negative level adjustment, and for the psychic theurge, no infinite PP trick functioned.

In the latter case, a player had taken feats and powers to get the infinite PP trick, and he was allowed to reselect those feats and powers when the ban was made.

Those rules were made for a reason (Incantatrix can be plenty powerful, and is still a tier 0 PrC with the nerf, and is game breaking without it. Infinite PP allows psion characters to throw their highest level powers 2 a round, every single combat. In other words, they become a 24 hour a day nova. It circumvents the PP mechanic's design purpose, and because of that, needs to be nerfed.)

Otherwise? Shadow Miracles? Veils and super dispels? Metamagic powerhouse? Psion that spent half the day immune to damage?

That's not warped enough for me to need heavy rules alteration to keep balance.

Bottom line? If a player doesn't check with his DM before building a character concept, and discuss it with him to avoid surprises? He shouldn't be huffy when he sees a surprise.

Riffington
2010-03-15, 01:45 PM
The only problem with rule 0 is that it isn't really rule 0. More like rule 0.2

Rule 0 is "we are getting together to play a game because we all want to have fun and do something creative."
Rule 0.1 is "And we've decided which game to play".


Only the true 0th rule is immutable. .1 is mutable (no reason the game can't suddenly turn into Rifts), though it rarely should be.

Certainly what D&D calls "Rule 0" has already gotten into highly-mutable territory. Many people here advocate a house rule of "let's play by RAW". Some prefer a Democratic style, while others enjoy the "DM is arbiter" that D&D lists. Heck, Paranoia has a fun one: displaying knowledge of the rules is Treasonous, citizen.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 01:49 PM
RAW should not be the most important thing in a game. If a player builds a character on a blatantly abusive mechanic/feature, and it's ruled to not work afterwards, that's their fault. They attempted to use a broken mechanic, and expect not to be overruled.

That said, to give you an idea on how rare that is in my games? One of my games featured an Incantatrix, a Shadowcraft mage, and early entry psychic theurge, and an Initiate of the Seven Veils.

The only houserules I had were that for incantatrix, no individual metamagic feat could have a negative level adjustment, and for the psychic theurge, no infinite PP trick functioned.

In the latter case, a player had taken feats and powers to get the infinite PP trick, and he was allowed to reselect those feats and powers when the ban was made.

Those rules were made for a reason (Incantatrix can be plenty powerful, and is still a tier 0 PrC with the nerf, and is game breaking without it. Infinite PP allows psion characters to throw their highest level powers 2 a round, every single combat. In other words, they become a 24 hour a day nova. It circumvents the PP mechanic's design purpose, and because of that, needs to be nerfed.)

Otherwise? Shadow Miracles? Veils and super dispels? Metamagic powerhouse? Psion that spent half the day immune to damage?

That's not warped enough for me to need heavy rules alteration to keep balance.

Bottom line? If a player doesn't check with his DM before building a character concept, and discuss it with him to avoid surprises? He shouldn't be huffy when he sees a surprise.

I agree with some parts of what you said.

I agree that if some mechanic is obviously broken then it should be baned.

What i don't agree with is for example from a real life game. We where fighting an invisible foe. none of us had any detection magic cuz we where idiots. though we had pin pointed the square he was in through other means . I used lighting bolt to hit the square he was in. the gm said i needed to roll a mis chance. I asked him why he blew up even after showing him raw why i didn't need to he used the argment gm is god.

baning things that are broken i agree is a good thing. making a rule call that blatently breaks the rules is wrong. there is a difference from baning punpun and breaking a build because a feat doesn't interact the way you thought it would because of your gm.

Most games i've played in the gms just look at your sheets after your done making it and realy don't want to entertain what if questions. Non of what you said is breaking RAW is just clarifying grey areas.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 01:59 PM
I agree with some parts of what you said.

I agree that if some mechanic is obviously broken then it should be baned.

What i don't agree with is for example from a real life game. We where fighting an invisible foe. none of us had any detection magic cuz we where idiots. though we had pin pointed the square he was in through other means . I used lighting bolt to hit the square he was in. the gm said i needed to roll a mis chance. I asked him why he blew up even after showing him raw why i didn't need to he used the argment gm is god.

baning things that are broken i agree is a good thing. making a rule call that blatently breaks the rules is wrong. there is a difference from baning punpun and breaking a build because a feat doesn't interact the way you thought it would because of your gm.

Most games i've played in the gms just look at your sheets after your done making it and realy don't want to entertain what if questions. Non of what you said is breaking RAW is just clarifying grey areas.

No, the infinite PP trick is rock solid RAW. Again, it goes back to: Rulings must be consistent, and must be balanced. Deviations from RAW must be thought out, and for valid reason. That is what I mean when I said "as close to RAW as possible".

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 02:04 PM
No, the infinite PP trick is rock solid RAW. Again, it goes back to: Rulings must be consistent, and must be balanced. Deviations from RAW must be thought out, and for valid reason. That is what I mean when I said "as close to RAW as possible".

then i agree 100%. However alot of GM's don't think it out. Or don't have fundementals in Game balance.

To me infinite loops are bad and should be shut down. No argument there.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-15, 02:37 PM
then i agree 100%. However alot of GM's don't think it out. Or don't have fundementals in Game balance.

To me infinite loops are bad and should be shut down. No argument there.

Some aren't so bad. I saw a player who made an infinite loop that did nothing but perform an infinite loop. There was no gain, or nothing else done. The loop could only perpetuate itself.

Zeful
2010-03-15, 02:58 PM
I dislike that rule 0 is in some way official, and so often given as some justification of authority mostly because I prefer democracy.

I wish you never meet some kinds of people I've played with, you're democratic process would never work, and you'd be stuck dealing with Level 1 wishes and infinite wealth. Those people are massive jerks. They're one of the many reasons I'm so very strict at my table (My first rule regarding books is: "If I'm not familiar with the material, the answer's 'No'", for a quick example).

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 03:22 PM
I wish you never meet some kinds of people I've played with, you're democratic process would never work, and you'd be stuck dealing with Level 1 wishes and infinite wealth. Those people are massive jerks. They're one of the many reasons I'm so very strict at my table (My first rule regarding books is: "If I'm not familiar with the material, the answer's 'No'", for a quick example).

Strictly speaking, I prefer level 1 miracles over level 1 wishes. With the XP cost, you can't actually cast wish until halfway into level 2.

That aside, if the group as a whole has a preference for that style of game, I will argue that the DM should cater to it, so long as the DM is comfortable with that level of optimization, and is willing to play that style of game. There is nothing inherently wrong with a level 1 PC casting miracle (wish, there is very obviously something wrong going on)

As a caveat to this, the players must in turn accept that the DM may retributively optimize as well to keep things interesting, and in my case, I have more rules knowledge than most players to the point that I'm comfortable dealing with such players, and can keep such a party challenged and interested.

Worira
2010-03-15, 03:36 PM
Last player that tried to argue Rule 0 with me came across a level 20 wizard when he was level 7. When he protested his swift death, I mentioned that the guidelines for encounter creation were in the DMG, and, as he so eloquently stated, was thus out of his purview.

DM's have more toys in their bag than players. It is never in a player's interest to get in a urination contest.

I don't use "Rocks Fall" (unless the high level assassin uses earthquake in a cave). I simply use the tools I need to assert the boundaries of the game.

Typically, after such an event happens, I inform a player that resurrections will be available once he or she concedes that I control the game's rules and arbitration.

Uh, yes, that's exactly what Rocks Fall means. Whether it was justified is one thing, but don't claim you didn't do it.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 03:37 PM
Uh, yes, that's exactly what Rocks Fall means. Whether is was justified is one thing, but don't claim you didn't do it.

LOL I wish i had read his post better you bring up a good point haha.

Saph
2010-03-15, 03:51 PM
That aside, if the group as a whole has a preference for that style of game, I will argue that the DM should cater to it, so long as the DM is comfortable with that level of optimization, and is willing to play that style of game. There is nothing inherently wrong with a level 1 PC casting miracle.

Problem with that line of thinking is that it places a huge amount of extra work on the DM. If you're dealing with characters that broken, you can't use anything in the Monster Manuals (too weak) you can't use any of the settings (because they assume a totally different power level) and you obviously can't use any of the modules (because they'd be a joke). Literally everything in the campaign requires a total rewrite at minimum, and more likely than not has to be created from scratch.

If a player tells me that I'm supposed to do all that work because it's my job to cater to them, my blunt response is going to be "what's in it for me?" They're going to have to come up with one hell of a convincing argument.

Yukitsu
2010-03-15, 03:52 PM
Problem with that line of thinking is that it places a huge amount of extra work on the DM. If you're dealing with characters that broken, you can't use anything in the Monster Manuals (too weak) you can't use any of the settings (because they assume a totally different power level) and you obviously can't use any of the modules (because they'd be a joke). Literally everything in the campaign requires a total rewrite at minimum, and more likely than not has to be created from scratch.

If a player tells me that I'm supposed to do all that work because it's my job to cater to them, my blunt response is going to be "what's in it for me?" They're going to have to come up with one hell of a convincing argument.

Yes, hence why I said only if the DM is up to it. I'm spoiled though, as almost every campaign I've played, or DMed was a DM custom one, where it was planned no more than a session or two ahead of time to account for changes in balance or in player choices. (My DMs also make me create custom encounters for them for when we're too much for his NPCs to handle I've made so many I generally don't remember their strengths and weaknesses when they get pulled out.)

If the DM is not up to it for simple time constraints or for effort, well if the players can't rally behind that reason they aren't particularly good freinds anyway.

Fitz10019
2010-03-15, 03:54 PM
`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-

I understood everything except the string of ducks.

Volkov
2010-03-15, 03:56 PM
Problem with that line of thinking is that it places a huge amount of extra work on the DM. If you're dealing with characters that broken, you can't use anything in the Monster Manuals (too weak) you can't use any of the settings (because they assume a totally different power level) and you obviously can't use any of the modules (because they'd be a joke). Literally everything in the campaign requires a total rewrite at minimum, and more likely than not has to be created from scratch.

If a player tells me that I'm supposed to do all that work because it's my job to cater to them, my blunt response is going to be "what's in it for me?" They're going to have to come up with one hell of a convincing argument.

This is why I work with a Co-dm, sometimes more than one if the next campaign is expected to have a really heavy work-load. This makes rewrites easier, and my usual co-dm (my girlfriend) is a tad better at optimization than I am.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-15, 04:23 PM
Problem with that line of thinking is that it places a huge amount of extra work on the DM. If you're dealing with characters that broken, you can't use anything in the Monster Manuals (too weak) you can't use any of the settings (because they assume a totally different power level) and you obviously can't use any of the modules (because they'd be a joke). Literally everything in the campaign requires a total rewrite at minimum, and more likely than not has to be created from scratch.

If a player tells me that I'm supposed to do all that work because it's my job to cater to them, my blunt response is going to be "what's in it for me?" They're going to have to come up with one hell of a convincing argument.

Throw them against a module that was written for higher level pcs..

Its enough of a challange... I belive Another gaming comic is kinda exploring that. 5th level pcs doing an 8th level adventure

BRC
2010-03-15, 05:08 PM
Alot of the Fallacies I see involving gaming are badly worded. a Fallacy is an invalid argument that people sometimes treat as valid, for example, the Middle Ground fallacy.
The Middle Ground Fallacy is that If there are two propositions, the best solution is always halfway between the two. If Bill says we should kill all the puppies, and Chris says we should not kill any, then the proper solution is to kill half the puppies.

This isn't true,

For example, the Stormwind Fallacy should say "Roleplaying and mechanical optimization are mutually exclusive", because that statement is a fallacy.


But this is important.
If the Oberoni Fallacy is properly written, what it's actually saying is that Rule 0 does not mean there can never be mechanical problems with a system.

As for the application of this fallacy, it depends on the situation. If said situation is a clear loophole, like Chain-Gating Solars, that's one thing. A DM can easily stop that with a simple application of rule 0. This is why everytime somebody mentions a wizard with 9th level spells, people don't automatically say "Gate-Chaining solars".

Now, if it's a more complex problem, like the underpowered nature of Monks, Rule 0 cannot be easily applied. You might as well say "Because, theoretically, a perfectly balanced and flaw-free version of DnD exists, any flaws in DnD are irrelevant".

Starbuck_II
2010-03-15, 05:23 PM
Alot of the Fallacies I see involving gaming are badly worded. a Fallacy is an invalid argument that people sometimes treat as valid, for example, the Middle Ground fallacy.
The Middle Ground Fallacy is that If there are two propositions, the best solution is always halfway between the two. If Bill says we should kill all the puppies, and Chris says we should not kill any, then the proper solution is to kill half the puppies.


Wait, is that 1/2 of each puppy or 1/2 of the total?

Gametime
2010-03-15, 06:41 PM
Wait, is that 1/2 of each puppy or 1/2 of the total?

The best solution must be in the middle, so I'm going to say we kill a quarter full puppies and two-quarters of the puppies we kill half of. That way, it'll average out!

Kurald Galain
2010-03-15, 07:31 PM
The Middle Ground Fallacy is that If there are two propositions, the best solution is always halfway between the two. If Bill says we should kill all the puppies, and Chris says we should not kill any, then the proper solution is to kill half the puppies.

:belkar: Great idea, when do we start?

Crow
2010-03-15, 11:26 PM
Any practical discussion about a game which is expected to be arbited by a GM cannot be discussed in such a way that completely disregards the GM's presence, and the GM's ability to enact Rule 0, without thus becoming theoretical (and no longer practical) discussion.

(Not Crow's Fallacy...Crow's Law)

The Glyphstone
2010-03-15, 11:31 PM
The best solution must be in the middle, so I'm going to say we kill a quarter full puppies and two-quarters of the puppies we kill half of. That way, it'll average out!

Or do we kill all the puppies, then reanimate/resurrect half of them via dark and forbidden methods?

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-03-15, 11:38 PM
Any practical discussion about a game which is expected to be arbited by a GM cannot be discussed in such a way that completely disregards the GM's presence, and the GM's ability to enact Rule 0, without thus becoming theoretical (and no longer practical) discussion.

(Not Crow's Fallacy...Crow's Law)Oh, laws of posting. How about a remake of the original?

As a thread about D&D 3.5 increases in size, the probability of someone using or invoking a Named Gamer Fallacy goes to 1.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 12:07 AM
Uh, yes, that's exactly what Rocks Fall means. Whether it was justified is one thing, but don't claim you didn't do it.

Actually, no. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is just that. Immediate instant death by arbitrary DM decision, with no RAW support for how it happened beyond Rule 0.

Sending higher level encounters after PC's isn't "rocks fall", it's "grudge monster". Perhaps a bit on the hairsplitting side, but as a former Hackmaster DM, I do understand the difference between rules-unfounded senseless death, and rules-supported senseless death.


Strictly speaking, I prefer level 1 miracles over level 1 wishes. With the XP cost, you can't actually cast wish until halfway into level 2.And without the XP cost? Wishes are available without XP cost at level one. How do you think Pun Pun comes to be?

Crow
2010-03-16, 12:09 AM
Wishes are available without XP cost at level one. How do you think Pun Pun comes to be?

How is that again?

Kylarra
2010-03-16, 12:11 AM
How is that again?Pazuzu Pazuzu Paz--:smalleek:

JoshuaZ
2010-03-16, 12:12 AM
How is that again?

Kobold paladin.

There's an entity called Pazuzu who grants wishes in a way that makes you evil. He doesn't grant all wishes but he really likes to corrupt paladins. Oh, and all it takes to summon him is to say his name three times or something like that.

BRC
2010-03-16, 12:13 AM
Pazuzu Pazuzu Paz--:smalleek:
Houserule: Any player that repeats Pazuzu three times will be treated as if they said Candlejack. Hopefully this will cut down on

JoshuaZ
2010-03-16, 12:16 AM
Pazuzu Pazuzu Paz--:smalleek:

You are confusing Pazuzu with Hastur from Call of Cthulhu. Pazuzu just grants you wishes he doesn't do anything bad (and if you say his name three times and he decides to not grant them he doesn't do anything). Hastur on the other hand really doesn't like it when you say his name.

Hastur. Hastur. Hastur.

Kylarra
2010-03-16, 12:19 AM
You are confusing Pazuzu with Hastur from Call of Cthulhu. Pazuzu just grants you wishes he doesn't do anything bad (and if you say his name three times and he decides to not grant them he doesn't do anything). Hastur on the other hand really doesn't like it when you say his name.

Hastur. Hastur. Hastur.Haha, you're funny. He doesn't do anything bad, only tries to corrupt you and take your soul. :smalltongue:

Crow
2010-03-16, 12:20 AM
I remember that guy now.

I remember for a while people were saying to have him wish you a candle of invocation so you can gate in your own wish-machine, but that doesn't work at level 1 because the candle only gave you the ability to cast Gate. It doesn't actually cover the xp cost for using it in the way required to get the Efreeti or whatever you get.

I am sure you could optimize UMD somehow to get the scroll to work though.

Yukitsu
2010-03-16, 12:22 AM
And without the XP cost? Wishes are available without XP cost at level one. How do you think Pun Pun comes to be?

You know, I read that and didn't find in the explicitly given knowledge text (which I think was a bad move on wizard's part) where it states that the knowledge check explicitly states that he can grant wishes in the "casts wish" sense, as opposed to being an individual that resolves your innermost dreams. Given the cost and ambiguity, I'd have to say doing so is thorough metagaming, which is less agreeable in my opinion, than powergaming. Not only that, but the wish as described by his methods should not be a further string of wishes, but the closest a wish can move towards the end result you desire in a single isntance, which is infinite power.

It's really the metagame required to make this work, rather than the theory that makes this theory op and not practical optimization. It doesn't work for a character, because you must explicitly make a paladin who will fall in the process, which is inherently impractical from a characterization standpoint.

Godskook
2010-03-16, 12:33 AM
Sending higher level encounters after PC's isn't "rocks fall", it's "grudge monster". Perhaps a bit on the hairsplitting side, but as a former Hackmaster DM, I do understand the difference between rules-unfounded senseless death, and rules-supported senseless death.

"Rocks fall" doesn't mean 'Rule 0', it means "You're dead, and there's nothing you can do about it". A well run L20 DMPC wizard intent on killing a L7 PC anything will do so. If you don't see that as "Rocks fall", you're not looking hard enough.

Coidzor
2010-03-16, 12:47 AM
"Rocks fall" doesn't mean 'Rule 0', it means "You're dead, and there's nothing you can do about it". A well run L20 DMPC wizard intent on killing a L7 PC anything will do so. If you don't see that as "Rocks fall", you're not looking hard enough.

Or you're looking too hard and can't see the forest for the trees whose monkeys' hairs you're splitting.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 01:24 AM
You know, I read that and didn't find in the explicitly given knowledge text (which I think was a bad move on wizard's part) where it states that the knowledge check explicitly states that he can grant wishes in the "casts wish" sense, as opposed to being an individual that resolves your innermost dreams. Given the cost and ambiguity, I'd have to say doing so is thorough metagaming, which is less agreeable in my opinion, than powergaming. Not only that, but the wish as described by his methods should not be a further string of wishes, but the closest a wish can move towards the end result you desire in a single isntance, which is infinite power.

It's really the metagame required to make this work, rather than the theory that makes this theory op and not practical optimization. It doesn't work for a character, because you must explicitly make a paladin who will fall in the process, which is inherently impractical from a characterization standpoint.
It can be researched. Knowledge checks cover all available knowledge. So: Without Direct DM Fiat, it is possible.


"Rocks fall" doesn't mean 'Rule 0', it means "You're dead, and there's nothing you can do about it". A well run L20 DMPC wizard intent on killing a L7 PC anything will do so. If you don't see that as "Rocks fall", you're not looking hard enough.

Actually, yes, it does.

This is the origination of the phrase (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml). It's deliberately impossible, using things that should not exist, such as bolts of lightning in caves, and rocks on the open plains.

If you do it legally, even if unfair, and give the PC's a chance, even if it's via parley, it's not rocks falls. If you don't see that... Well, I don't think you're looking hard enough. :smallwink:

Icewraith
2010-03-16, 01:48 AM
Anything 4crs above the party (unless you're in a really high powered game) can generally be classified under the following four conditions:

1: Roleplaying encounter. Generally best done by dropping not-so-subtle hints that the opponent is far beyond any of the party.

2: Plot encounter. Sometimes, if the plot calls for a huge army of orcs, or PC roleplaying ticks off a demon lord via summoning abuse, there will be a friggin' huge army of orcs or a demon invasion, even if the PCs are nowehere near appropriate level. The general goal in these cases is survival or escape.

3a: GM punishment. The GM punishes the player by sending extremely powerful foes, but lets the dice decide who lives/dies and clever roleplaying or strategy may still result in a victory.

3b: Rocks fall. You have REALLY pushed the GM too far. The temperment of GM generally determines whether they resort to option 3a or 3b first, work out your differences or drop the issue, but the campaign is ending soon or perhaps the player's involvement in it depending on the issue.

The scale between options 3a and 3b is very slight, but I'd say angry wiz 20dmpc vs level 7 character is definitely on the 3b side of the scale.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 02:16 AM
Anything 4crs above the party (unless you're in a really high powered game) can generally be classified under the following four conditions:

1: Roleplaying encounter. Generally best done by dropping not-so-subtle hints that the opponent is far beyond any of the party.

2: Plot encounter. Sometimes, if the plot calls for a huge army of orcs, or PC roleplaying ticks off a demon lord via summoning abuse, there will be a friggin' huge army of orcs or a demon invasion, even if the PCs are nowehere near appropriate level. The general goal in these cases is survival or escape.

3a: GM punishment. The GM punishes the player by sending extremely powerful foes, but lets the dice decide who lives/dies and clever roleplaying or strategy may still result in a victory.

3b: Rocks fall. You have REALLY pushed the GM too far. The temperment of GM generally determines whether they resort to option 3a or 3b first, work out your differences or drop the issue, but the campaign is ending soon or perhaps the player's involvement in it depending on the issue.

The scale between options 3a and 3b is very slight, but I'd say angry wiz 20dmpc vs level 7 character is definitely on the 3b side of the scale.

Struck out is everything that I DIDN'T say. I have used high level caster insertion occasionally, because I don't run status quo games. CR 11 creatures don't magically pop in my world because a PC hit level 9.

They exist. And a jerk player pulling a jerk move, and then blatantly arguing with the DM can expect to see a roadblock in the path of that action. The player has a choice. They can bend, or they can keep ramming that head into a wall. The latter results in death.

By definition, if a player has control over their character's life or death, it's not Rocks Fall.

So please. PLEASE. Have the courtesy to assume that I know a bit more about my DM methods and policies than you do.

AjaxTorbin
2010-03-16, 02:32 AM
I and my co-authors would like to thank all those who have replied; we thank you for your interest and thought provoking discussion.

`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`

Personally I would note that not only has this forum garnered the most replies, it also has the distinction, so far, of having garnered all these replies and maintained an actual discussion without resulting in degenerating from reasoned debate to hostile accusations and/or avoidance of the current subject.

I am impressed, but not surprised.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-16, 07:11 AM
This is the origination of the phrase (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml). It's deliberately impossible, using things that should not exist, such as bolts of lightning in caves, and rocks on the open plains.

If you do it legally, even if unfair, and give the PC's a chance, even if it's via parley, it's not rocks falls. If you don't see that... Well, I don't think you're looking hard enough. :smallwink:

That is deffinetly not the origin of the phrase seeing as people used the phrase way way before that comic came out... I'd say even before 2nd edition.

And yes the phrase rocks fall every one dies talks about a gm punishing players. Some time its in que with whats going on, like being in a cave and theres a random cave in. Totaly within the rules and yet kills every one.

Or one of the gods decides to smite a player witha lighting bolt... or for that matter a lvl 20 decideds to smite lower level advenuterers with a lighting bolt.


Rocks fall and every one dies is just a phrase that GM's use to stop a current campain due to some factor using obviously dubious methods, though they can be "within the rules".

sonofzeal
2010-03-16, 07:37 AM
Just as any logical path started from illogic breaks down . . . any logical path started from an assumption cannot be fact.
Incorrect. All logical paths, every single one, starts from assumptions. Often we label them as such; sometimes we refer to them as "axioms" or "postulates" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate). All mathematics and most science is based on a foundation of axioms that we assume to be true without any further justification. Some of the most interesting divergent paths in mathematics happen when you add, remove, or alter one of the axioms. Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry) is a good example.



Additionally, I feel you don't adequately address the context in which the Oberoni Fallacy is most often invoked in my experience - in discussion of comparative gaming systems. Consider the following exchange:

A: "I dislike D&D because it's broken"
B: "Eh, a decent DM will fix anything that comes up."
A: "Oberoni Fallacy. Just because a DM can fix it doesn't mean it isn't a flaw of the system."

Person A has an entirely valid point here. A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention. The Oberoni Fallacy is useful in this case as a shorthand for describing and explaining that mistake.

Jayabalard
2010-03-16, 07:50 AM
I'm not saying this happens every time, but a lot of the time the argument goes like this:

OP: Hi Playground, I was wondering if [system X] was a fun system to play.

A: [System X] is broken because of [some theoretical trick].

B: You can't indict all of [System X] just because of one dirty trick. It would never even see play. If you tried that trick in an actual game, the GM would [enact some sort of violence upon your person], and rightly so.

A: Oberoni Fallacy! Just because a DM could houserule the trick away doesn't mean it's not broken in the first place.

IMO in this (strawmanish I admit) example it's A who's falling back to the Oberoni Fallacy and attempting to end the discussion by citing it when it's not really appropriate. A is tacitly arguing that the system is flawed because of some dirty trick. B is responding to that argument not by saying there never was a theoretical problem, but by saying that theoretical problem has never and never will manifest itself in actual play. Actually, person B is pretty clearly implying that it is easy for the GM to prevent that from ever occuring, and that the other portions of the game make the game system fun to play; person A is not really answering the OP's question in your example (since fun to play and broken are only really tangentially related)

To me, the issue is always goes back to the fact that I think that it's easier and better to run a game with loose rules, where the GM regularly makes rulings vs a game with an ironclad, rock-solid ruleset with no rules loopholes (if one actually exists, I'm not personally convinced that it does). So as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing the least bit fallacious with the statement "an ambiguous or even flawed rule is not actually a problem, because the GM can (and should) be making rulings to deal with those situations."

SpikeFightwicky
2010-03-16, 08:50 AM
Houserule: Any player that repeats Pazuzu three times will be treated as if they said Candlejack. Hopefully this will cut down on

I'm going to need more rope....

I always found the whole Pazuzu thing sketchy. What DM wouldn't corrupt the wish (from a C/E entity, no less)?

Starbuck_II
2010-03-16, 08:58 AM
I'm going to need more rope....

I always found the whole Pazuzu thing sketchy. What DM wouldn't corrupt the wish (from a C/E entity, no less)?

But then the DM wouldn't be using the Wish like Pazuzu: unless extreme circumstances you should follow the tactics listed.
Like owlbear shouldn't pick up guns and shoot you guys because owlbears aren't proficient in guns.
They should act like:
Owlbears attack prey—any creature bigger than a mouse—on sight, always fighting to the death. They slash with claws and beak, trying to grab their prey and rip it apart.

Same as Pazuzu saying he will give safe wishes in order to corrupt people. Paladins get 1 free wish before corruption (2nd time they call P for a wish are corrupted).
If word got around that the wishes wouldn't be safe: no one would call him and then no one is Corrupted.

sonofzeal
2010-03-16, 09:03 AM
You are confusing Pazuzu with Hastur from Call of Cthulhu. Pazuzu just grants you wishes he doesn't do anything bad (and if you say his name three times and he decides to not grant them he doesn't do anything). Hastur on the other hand really doesn't like it when you say his name.

Hastur. Hastur. Hastur.
Depends which mythos writer you consult. All Lovecraft did was to give him the title "He Who Should Not Be Named", a reference to (I believe) Roman mythology, where certain entities shouldn't be summoned because they might be rather busy at the moment and the results could be unpleasant if they were interrupted. Like, say, if you summoned Atlas and the entire world collapsed. It's only later writers who decided that saying his name meant YOU bite the big one, and even that contradicts other official mythos stories so... YMMV.

I have a feeling we're drifting off topic though.

Gametime
2010-03-16, 11:23 AM
Perhaps a bit on the hairsplitting side, but as a former Hackmaster DM, I do understand the difference between rules-unfounded senseless death, and rules-supported senseless death.


The important distinction, as far as I'm concerned, is whether the senseless death was hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Yukitsu
2010-03-16, 11:25 AM
It can be researched. Knowledge checks cover all available knowledge. So: Without Direct DM Fiat, it is possible.


Research only explicitly grants what knowledge does, and it doesn't excuse that you are making a lawful good character just so that you may commit a chaotic evil act for the sake of personal power.

If you did such research, you would also gain the knowledge that it's a chaotic evil entity, and if you continued to pursue such an entity, it would not be DM fiat to make you fall for pursuing evil sources of power for power's sake.

Not only that, but it still ignores the flavour text stating he telepathically reads your mind and fulfills the innermost desire to the limits of a wish, rather than giving you unlimited wishes, because it's rarely the wishes themselves that are one's primary goal.

Frosty
2010-03-16, 02:19 PM
Incorrect. All logical paths, every single one, starts from assumptions. Often we label them as such; sometimes we refer to them as "axioms" or "postulates" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate). All mathematics and most science is based on a foundation of axioms that we assume to be true without any further justification. Some of the most interesting divergent paths in mathematics happen when you add, remove, or alter one of the axioms. Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry) is a good example.



Additionally, I feel you don't adequately address the context in which the Oberoni Fallacy is most often invoked in my experience - in discussion of comparative gaming systems. Consider the following exchange:

A: "I dislike D&D because it's broken"
B: "Eh, a decent DM will fix anything that comes up."
A: "Oberoni Fallacy. Just because a DM can fix it doesn't mean it isn't a flaw of the system."

Person A has an entirely valid point here. A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention. The Oberoni Fallacy is useful in this case as a shorthand for describing and explaining that mistake.

The response I'd use tp statement A is: "DnD is broken, I agree. However, there are enough about it that I like, such as the infinite customization, that I'm willing to put in the effort to do game balancing and houserule writing to make a game that my friends and I enjoy. We still enjoy the basic premise and basic framework. My friends and I merely remove the stupidity that got past WoTC's quality control team. You may not feel it is worth the effort, but I think it is, and I think you an have fun with DnD or a reasonable facsimile thereof if you try some of my houserules."

That response should have no fallacy in it.

Jayabalard
2010-03-16, 02:45 PM
Person A has an entirely valid point here.So does person B.


A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention.I don't agree with this statement. Personally I think that a system in which the DM is encouraged or even required to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which is supposed to stand on it's own without houseruling and intervention.

Nor does one system being superior to the other necessarily mean that the inferior one is flawed in any way, or that the superior one is not flawed in some way: all that means is that the superior one has more goodies than the inferior one.

Indon
2010-03-16, 03:08 PM
A: "I dislike D&D because it's broken"
B: "Eh, a decent DM will fix anything that comes up."
A: "Oberoni Fallacy. Just because a DM can fix it doesn't mean it isn't a flaw of the system."

Person A has an entirely valid point here.
I agree. However, I think the legitimate part of Person A's point is that the ability of a DM to change a systme does not change the system itself.

The assertation of A that whatever A doesn't like about the system breaks it, and is a flaw that must be fixed, however, is itself a fallacy (as noted earlier, a non sequitur) which he's trying to piggyback off of his argument.


A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention.

This point being the piggybacked fallacy - a trivial example of why this is wrong would be Exalted, which is unbalanced enough that if you gave it to the D&D TO community they'd just never stop laughing. But that doesn't make it an inferior game by any means, just a different game.

A better example of what I'm trying to demonstrate would concern 4E:


A: 4E D&D fails at roleplaying because it doesn't allow you to make X/Y/Z awesome character concepts in the rules.
B: Players can work with their DMs to reflavor or accomadate almost any imaginable concept, including X, Y, and Z.
A: Oberoni fallacy, just because the DM can inject roleplaying doesn't mean the game supports it.
This is a legitimate invocation of the fallacy, but is being used to sneak across the non sequitur that 4E D&D is flawed because it doesn't directly mechanically support the character concepts that A wants to play.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 03:12 PM
I don't agree with this statement. Personally I think that a system in which the DM is encouraged or even required to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which is supposed to stand on it's own without houseruling and intervention.
You just strawmanned his position.

He didn't say that a system where a dm is encouraged to mitigate imbalance via modification is superior to one which is supposed to stand on its own.

His position seems to be that a system where a DM is required to alter the rules to create a balanced experience is strictly inferior to one where the experience is balanced without that extra work. It's not about "supposed" to stand on its own. It's about a system that DOES. I would agree with this, under the stipulation "If all other things are equal".

For example: Chess is a well balanced game. Each side begins with approximately equal potential. Same pieces, same abilities. One player has the advantage of going first, the other has the advantage of making his first move after getting a clue as to his opponent's tactic.

The issue lies with variety. When you start creating pieces that function differently, then they must be balanced. What if one side's knights couldn't jump other pieces, but their king could move two spaces? Would it still be balanced? What if one side's pawns couldn't move 2 spaces in their first move, or capture opposing pieces En Passant, but in exchange, could attack pieces directly in front of them? Would it be balanced?

That's when you start having to compare apples and oranges, and it's an imperfect system, and devilishly hard to gauge.

***

The issue at hand is this: We have a company that spans the country (we'll call this country Newcountria). Let's say this company has poor logistics, nationwide. However, it has branches in every city. Many of these branches work locally to improve their logistics, by integrating with aid from the community, and local businesses.

One side is saying: The company doesn't have any logistics problems, because they are being fixed on a local level.

The counter is: They're not always fixed on a local level, first. Only in the cities with experienced managers.

Second? If a good system of logistics was in place to begin with, thousands of man-hours would be saved nationwide, allowing for a more efficient and better functioning company.

In this example, the company is D&D. The managers are individual local DM's. Logistics is balance. One side is taking the (imagined) successes of a local area, and improperly applying it to the entire model. One cannot solve a public relations problem in one city, and say the entire country is happy. That's falsification to the tune of many orders of magnitude.

Jayabalard
2010-03-16, 03:21 PM
You just strawmanned his position.

He didn't say that a system where a dm is encouraged to mitigate imbalance via modification is superior to one which is supposed to stand on its own.Not at all; I'm portraying his position as "A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention" ... which is the text that he used. In order to be straw-manning his position I'd have to be portraying it as something other than that and arguing against that position.

The rest of the text that you quoted there is where I'm giving what I believe is a clear counter-example to that position, illustrating the fact that I think that he is taking his personal preference and assuming it to be an axiom. This is kind of at the core to the "Oberoni Fallacy" nonsense; the only thing involved that is fallacious is assuming that your preference (in this case, that a game that is balanced in and of itself makes a game strictly superior to one that requires addition work on the part of the GM) is universal.


His position seems to be that a system where a DM is required to alter the rules to create a balanced experience is strictly inferior to one where the experience is balanced without that extra work. Yes, I disagree with this statement.


For example: Chess is a well balanced game. Each side begins with approximately equal potential. Same pieces, same abilities. One player has the advantage of going first, the other has the advantage of making his first move after getting a clue as to his opponent's tactic.Well balanced, perhaps, but that has nothing to do with being superior.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 03:26 PM
Not at all; I'm portraying his position as "A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention" ... in order to be straw-manning his position I'd have to be portraying it as something other than that.

The rest of the text that you quoted there is where I'm giving what I believe is a clear counter-example to that position.

Yes, I disagree with this statement.

Well balanced, perhaps, but that has nothing to do with being superior.

Well, you're entitled to that view. If you prefer performing extra work to arrive at the same goal, that's your view.

But there's a reason that Chess has been around for over 600 years (1400 years, if you include the game it evolved from). Longstanding popularity is a sign that it's superior. And, being a game based entirely on skill, the ability of it to create an even, balanced playing field has a great deal to do with it being superior at accomplishing what it does. A very great deal.

EDIT: If you were to leave it at "balance is not relevant to quality" as you portray here, you may have a point. However, earlier you stated that you felt imbalanced systems were obviously superior to balanced ones. Thus, you portray a LACK of balance as a sign of quality, which undermines your point that balance is a poor representation of the superiority of a system here.

Yahzi
2010-03-16, 03:31 PM
A is tacitly arguing that the system is flawed because of some dirty trick. B is responding to that argument not by saying there never was a theoretical problem, but by saying that theoretical problem has never and never will manifest itself in actual play. The merit of such an empirical claim relies less on logical construction and more on the circumstances of the system and the dirty trick involved.
Best answer!

Jayabalard
2010-03-16, 03:46 PM
Well, you're entitled to that view. If you prefer performing extra work to arrive at the same goal, that's your view.Thanks... it's good to know that I'm allowed to have opinions.


Longstanding popularity is a sign that it's superior. I don't agree that popularity (longstanding or otherwise) has anything to do with being superior. Backgammon is an even older game than chess (~5000 years old iirc) but that doesn't mean that it's superior to more modern games like chess.

The same can be said about any directly competitive physical activity with little to no tools involved (wrestling, footraces,etc). These are probably some of the oldest games for the human race, and they've enjoyed long standing popularity, but that doesn't make them superior to modern sports.

In fact, I'd say that (in general) popularity is a mark of mediocrity (or even inferiority), since popularity tends to be a result of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Hence: NASCAR, Fast Food, Reality TV, etc are all extremely popular, but I'm of the opinion that that they are all strictly inferior to their less popular competition. Except for fairly recent history, public executions and torture have long been an extremely popular form of public entertainment.

Godskook
2010-03-16, 03:53 PM
Actually, yes, it does.

This is the origination of the phrase (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml). It's deliberately impossible, using things that should not exist, such as bolts of lightning in caves, and rocks on the open plains.

If you do it legally, even if unfair, and give the PC's a chance, even if it's via parley, it's not rocks falls. If you don't see that... Well, I don't think you're looking hard enough. :smallwink:

I'm aware of that comic. However, it'd be much simpler just to point you here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 04:20 PM
Thanks... it's good to know that I'm allowed to have opinions.

I don't agree that popularity (longstanding or otherwise) has anything to do with being superior. Backgammon is an even older game than chess (~5000 years old iirc) but that doesn't mean that it's superior to more modern games like chess.

The same can be said about any directly competitive physical activity with little to no tools involved (wrestling, footraces,etc). These are probably some of the oldest games for the human race, and they've enjoyed long standing popularity, but that doesn't make them superior to modern sports.

In fact, I'd say that (in general) popularity is a mark of mediocrity (or even inferiority), since popularity tends to be a result of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Hence: NASCAR, Fast Food, Reality TV, etc are all extremely popular, but I'm of the opinion that that they are all strictly inferior to their less popular competition. Except for fairly recent history, public executions and torture have long been an extremely popular form of public entertainment.

Depends on your benchmark of "superiority". If one person views the pinnacle of artistic expression to be superior to Nascar, again, they're entitled to their view. But if the benchmark for superiority is how many people have enjoyed it, or how much entertainment it's brought, then I daresay that Nascar would be the superior.

Things are not necessarily inferior, just because they appeal to a less educated crowd. That opinion is the mark of elitism. I stated that longstanding popularity is a benchmark of superiority. It's certainly not the only one. However, I posit that for any with an aim to entertain, entertaining more people is better than entertaining less, all other things being equal.

Since a game's primary purpose is entertainment, popularity can be considered a direct benchmark of its quality.

In other words: The view that entertaining the large numbers of lowest common denominator is somehow less worthy or inferior to entertaining fewer numbers of the more intellectually refined? In my opinion, is complete rubbish.

Frosty
2010-03-16, 04:21 PM
In this example, the company is D&D. The managers are individual local DM's. Logistics is balance. One side is taking the (imagined) successes of a local area, and improperly applying it to the entire model. One cannot solve a public relations problem in one city, and say the entire country is happy. That's falsification to the tune of many orders of magnitude.
That's definitely true, but that doesn't stop me from being happy with the produt given that I am a successful individual branch with a track record of profits (profit being hours of fun I've had with friends thanks to DnD).

I'm not saying I wouldn't be HAPPIER with a more balanced product that doesn't require me to put in extra hours, but...

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 04:29 PM
That's definitely true, but that doesn't stop me from being happy with the produt given that I am a successful individual branch with a track record of profits (profit being hours of fun I've had with friends thanks to DnD).

I'm not saying I wouldn't be HAPPIER with a more balanced product that doesn't require me to put in extra hours, but...

And that's precisely the point.

Nobody's saying that D&D is Badwrongnotfun (at least, nobody I agree with). Oberoni does not make claims that the system is worthless.

Only that stating that a problem isn't a problem because some people fix it? Is a flawed line of reasoning.

It's still a problem, because it took effort and energy for those that did fix it, and it continues to be an issue for those that don't.

That's not to say that the whole game should be thrown in the trash. Just that these problems DO exist, and discussion is a good thing, rather than handwaving it away as "not a problem". After all, such discussion allows those fixes that are discovered to be shared. By acknowledging a problem, we take the first step to correcting it. Therefore, acknowledging it on a large scale is the first step to fixing it on a large scale.

Frosty
2010-03-16, 04:52 PM
I think a lot of people who cite this fallacy are doing it in a fashion to try to show/prove that DnD is wrong and should be put down.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-16, 05:16 PM
I think a lot of people who cite this fallacy are doing it in a fashion to try to show/prove that DnD is wrong and should be put down.

Any application of this fallacy that isn't being used to support the existence of a problem is a misapplication. Whether that means that the system itself is ban is a matter of speculation and opinion. However, this fallacy can only show that statements are wrong, not games.

Crow
2010-03-16, 08:36 PM
Research only explicitly grants what knowledge does, and it doesn't excuse that you are making a lawful good character just so that you may commit a chaotic evil act for the sake of personal power.

If you did such research, you would also gain the knowledge that it's a chaotic evil entity, and if you continued to pursue such an entity, it would not be DM fiat to make you fall for pursuing evil sources of power for power's sake.

Not only that, but it still ignores the flavour text stating he telepathically reads your mind and fulfills the innermost desire to the limits of a wish, rather than giving you unlimited wishes, because it's rarely the wishes themselves that are one's primary goal.

The whole Pazuzu-Paladin thing runs directly afould of my law I posted earlier. The pazuzu trick relies upon an almost non-existant DM. D&D is meant to be played with a DM though, which pushes the trick straight into the realm of theory, since it wouldn't be allowed in a real game.

Jayabalard
2010-03-17, 07:22 AM
Depends on your benchmark of "superiority". If one person views the pinnacle of artistic expression to be superior to Nascar, again, they're entitled to their view. But if the benchmark for superiority is how many people have enjoyed it, or how much entertainment it's brought, then I daresay that Nascar would be the superior.It's the difference betwen quantity and quality. Quality is an indication of superiority; quantity is not. Popularity is a mark of quantity, not quality.


In other words: The view that entertaining the large numbers of lowest common denominator is somehow less worthy or inferior to entertaining fewer numbers of the more intellectually refined? In my opinion, is complete rubbish."intellectually refined" really has nothing to do with it ... being entertaining to large numbers of people does not indicate that that particular entertainment is superior to something that is entertaining for a fewer numbers of people (educated or not).

Going back to your chess example: chess has not anywhere near as long of a period of popularity as backgammon, but that does not indicate that backgammon is in any way superior to chess. It just means that it's older.


Only that stating that a problem isn't a problem because some people fix it? Is a flawed line of reasoning. Not in the slightest; it's just based on a different set of opinion-based axioms than the ones that you use.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-17, 07:24 AM
It's the difference betwen quantity and quality. Quality is an indication of superiority; quantity is not. Popularity is a mark of quantity, not quality.


I don't know. Those who have the quanity (money) makes the rules in most soceities: doesn't that indicate superiority? They get better education, etc.

Jayabalard
2010-03-17, 07:31 AM
I don't know. Those who have the quanity (money) makes the rules in America: doesn't that indicate superiority? They get better education, etc.I would say not; they just have more money.

They don't necessarily get better education; they may go to a more expensive school (or they may not even bother, since they already have money) but that's not always indicative of being "better" (depending on the field)

And really, I'm not really sure what would be part of the "etc" there...

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-17, 07:40 AM
It's the difference betwen quantity and quality. Quality is an indication of superiority; quantity is not. Popularity is a mark of quantity, not quality.Again, it depends on your measure of superiority. Tell me what this means:

"The Thayan army engaged the Sembian forces with superior numbers."

Were their numbers somehow shinier, or prettier? Or were they simply bigger?

Success is nearly always a measure of quality. After all, the first rule of showbusiness is what?

Give the people what they want.

Also, as a famous figure once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

If you judge entertainment on anything but its ability to entertain, I say you have a very poor standard. As quality is a qualitative (read: subjective) analysis, I can say this: Under your argument, nothing can be shown to be superior, because quality is opinion, when you're referring to the arts.

You're arguing for a stalemate. In my experience, only the losing player does that.

"intellectually refined" really has nothing to do with it ... being entertaining to large numbers of people does not indicate that that particular entertainment is superior to something that is entertaining for a fewer numbers of people (educated or not).
No, that's EXACTLY what you said, criticizing highly successful bastions of entertainment, stating that appealing to the masses is a sign of inferiority. Implying that those that are not the "lowest common denominator" have more valid interpretations of successful entertainment. As if their opinions are more worthy of being counted. Such a position reeks of exclusivity and elitism.


Not in the slightest; it's just based on a different set of opinion-based axioms than the ones that you use.
No. Stating a problem isn't a problem for ANY reason is saying water isn't water. It's saying mud isn't mud.

A problem is a problem.
Why is this problem a problem? Because it either requires effort to fix, or provides negative balance consequences.

But yeah, some people see bugs as features. If any of you out there would prefer to pick up a 10 year old broken washing machine from a junkyard and fix it, over getting the washer that functions perfectly from the thrift store, be my guest. Do more work for the same effect. I won't judge.

Then again, I'll posit this: Any line of reasoning that heralds the flawed over the flawless, the broken over the functional?

Is a flawed line of reasoning. Have fun with that, Jaya.

Indon
2010-03-17, 08:01 AM
Only that stating that a problem isn't a problem because some people fix it? Is a flawed line of reasoning.

And I'm saying that, in turn, that is a flawed line of reasoning, because it is used to presuppose that what the arguer doesn't like about a system is a problem that needs to be fix, rather than a preference that they simply want to impose upon the game.

I would, again, cite 3.x D&D. 4E is without a doubt more balanced - but that doesn't mean it's a superior RPG. Just a different one with different problems.


A problem is a problem.
Except when it's someone's opinion, and they're trying to use a logical argument to pass it off as an objective problem.

I've already given examples of quality RPGs which are unbalanced, in comparison with balanced RPGs. The very fact that 4E is no closer to dominating the field than 3.x ever was is evidence that balance is more a preference than a merit.

Admittedly, it is a preference which is good for generating profit and bringing people into a game - I've seen RPGA games for Living Forgotten Realms in play, I can definitely see how that approach benefits from balance.

But here we come to my point about how games are different - Living Forgotten Realms is not necessarily a better model for an RPG than any other - just a very different one.

Jayabalard
2010-03-17, 08:17 AM
Again, it depends on your measure of superiority. In the context of the discussion that we're having, specifically: "is game system A superior to game system B" that we're talking about: "superior" (or "better") is a value based judgment that is completely subjective.

Back to the statement that kicked particular line of discussion off: "A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention" ... Whether this is true or not is completely dependent on the opinions of individual's. It's not a clear cut, absolute, objective fact. It's not "obviously superior" unless you are taking that as one of your axioms (in which case you need to join the tautology club).


No, that's EXACTLY what you said, criticizing highly successful bastions of entertainment, stating that appealing to the masses is a sign of inferiority.Not at all, I'm implying that appealing to the masses just means that you're appealing to the masses (yay tautology) and that it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that you're drawing, namely: that popularity is a sign that that something is superior to something else that lacks that popularity. It does not mean that that particular form of entertainment is superior to ones that do not appeal to the masses. I said that in my opinion it's often a sign of mediocrity, and sometimes even a sign of inferiority.

And I gave several examples of things that are popular that I think are strictly inferior compared to their competing alternatives.


Implying that those that are not the "lowest common denominator" have more valid interpretations of successful entertainment.You're using a different definition of "lowest common denominator" than I am. I'm using it as in "The most basic level of taste among a group of people" while you're interpreting that as the pejorative usage "the people who only have such tastes" ... I'm referring to the tastes themselves (what's common to a lot of people), not a class of people (the unwashed masses).


No. Stating a problem isn't a problem for ANY reason is saying water isn't water. It's saying mud isn't mud.Not at all; whether something is a problem or not (maybe it's a feature instead) is a matter of opinion; water and mud on the other hand have much more objective and concrete definitions.

Gametime
2010-03-17, 12:10 PM
Then again, I'll posit this: Any line of reasoning that heralds the flawed over the flawless, the broken over the functional?

Is a flawed line of reasoning.

But anyone holding that line of reasoning would believe it is better for being flawed. So they win! :smalltongue:

Gametime
2010-03-17, 12:15 PM
Not at all, I'm implying that appealing to the masses just means that you're appealing to the masses (yay tautology) and that it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that you're drawing, namely: that popularity is a sign that that something is superior to something else that lacks that popularity. It does not mean that that particular form of entertainment is superior to ones that do not appeal to the masses. I said that in my opinion it's often a sign of mediocrity, and sometimes even a sign of inferiority.

And I gave several examples of things that are popular that I think are strictly inferior compared to their competing alternatives.



I don't think you can draw a clear correlation between popularity and quality on either axis. I do think popularity can be an indicator of quality, in certain circumstances. I don't think it's ever an indicator of a lack of a quality; things that are popular may be crappy, but I don't think that most things that are crappy are popular. Assuming that would require some fairly unpleasant beliefs about the average person. Things that are popular and obviously crap (fast food, etc.) aren't necessarily popular for their quality, but their availability, which is a whole separate factor. I doubt many people would choose a Big Mac over a steak, given the option, but when the Big Mac is several times cheaper, their don't have as much room to judge based on quality.

Of course, that little probing of analogy doesn't really apply to roleplaying games, although I guess you could argue that D&D is so popular partly because D&D is so popular; every gaming store carries books and supplies, every gamer has heard of or played it, and so on. For a social game, popularity is self-reinforcing.

What was I talking about, again? OH! Right. Popularity may be an indicator of quality or some other factor, but most certainly does not effectively correlate with it.

Frosty
2010-03-17, 01:33 PM
And I'm saying that, in turn, that is a flawed line of reasoning, because it is used to presuppose that what the arguer doesn't like about a system is a problem that needs to be fix, rather than a preference that they simply want to impose upon the game.

I am confused by this. If you can elaborate for me here...

Person A: I think game system X has a lot of problems like for example the horrible lack of Y [where Y is probably something like class balance].

Person B: Well it's not really a good example of a problem since a lot of DMs can easily tweak the system so that the lack of Y is minimized.

So right here, are you saying that Person B does NOT have a flawed line of reasoning because Person A's dislike of a the lack of Y is a personal preference rather than a real problem?

Something about this doesn't sit right with me. You're saying that the Oberoni Fallacy is not a fallacy because not everyone agrees with how the game should be made? I'm probably misunderstanding you horribly here but that's what I'm getting out of this.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-17, 01:36 PM
And I'm saying that, in turn, that is a flawed line of reasoning, because it is used to presuppose that what the arguer doesn't like about a system is a problem that needs to be fix, rather than a preference that they simply want to impose upon the game.
Incorrect. I'm not referring to mixed bags. I'm referring to problems.

There is no circumstance where 2 does not equal 2, barring outlandish qualifiers.
There is no circumstance where problem is not equal to problem.

You are arguing that the entire line of reasoning is flawed, simply because individual applications can be. That is a dirty lie.


I would, again, cite 3.x D&D. 4E is without a doubt more balanced - but that doesn't mean it's a superior RPG. Just a different one with different problems.Exactly. However 3.5 and 4e are not the same, with the exception of balance.

Balance is one measure of a game's quality. I never said it was the only one. In fact, I believe I stated that it was one measure from the get-go.

Let's look at it this way. Say quality is Z. Balance is A. Two other Factors are B and C

For game 1: a(1)+b(1)+c(1)=z(1).
For game 2: a(2)+b(2)+c(2)=z(2).

Now, I say that Game 1 has a higher "A".
a(1) > a(2)

Which Z is higher?

It can't be determined. Because we don't know how other benchmarks of quality (b) and (c).

My statement, from the beginning, was "other things being equal, having a good result with less effort is better than having a good result with more effort".

You are taking it to mean "OMG I 4ED IS BETTER THAN 3.X".

That's just not true. I prefer 3.x. Not for its balance issues though. For its versatility, which is another benchmark.


Except when it's someone's opinion, and they're trying to use a logical argument to pass it off as an objective problem.Except that I'm not. You're just saying I am.


I've already given examples of quality RPGs which are unbalanced, in comparison with balanced RPGs. The very fact that 4E is no closer to dominating the field than 3.x ever was is evidence that balance is more a preference than a merit.Because not all other things are equal. So your argument has absolutely zero relevance to the point I'm making. Zero. As in none.



Back to the statement that kicked particular line of discussion off: "A system in which the DM does not need to overturn the rules to ensure balanced gameplay is obviously superior to one which requires constant houseruling and intervention" ... Whether this is true or not is completely dependent on the opinions of individual's. It's not a clear cut, absolute, objective fact. It's not "obviously superior" unless you are taking that as one of your axioms (in which case you need to join the tautology club).And my statement was, "All other things being equal, the above is true. This is my opinion, yes. It is also my opinion that it is common sense. Getting a quarter is better than getting a dime. Opinion? Yeah. I'm sure there's someone out there who likes getting the short end of the stick.

Here's your dime.

And I'm saying that, in turn, that is a flawed line of reasoning, because it is used to presuppose that what the arguer doesn't like about a system is a problem that needs to be fix, rather than a preference that they simply want to impose upon the game.
Incorrect. I'm not referring to mixed bags. I'm referring to problems.

There is no circumstance where 2 does not equal 2, barring outlandish qualifiers.
There is no circumstance where problem is not equal to problem.

You are arguing that the entire line of reasoning is flawed, simply because individual applications can be. That is a dirty lie.


I would, again, cite 3.x D&D. 4E is without a doubt more balanced - but that doesn't mean it's a superior RPG. Just a different one with different problems.Exactly. However 3.5 and 4e are not the same, with the exception of balance.

Balance is one measure of a game's quality. I never said it was the only one. In fact, I believe I stated that it was one measure from the get-go.

Let's look at it this way. Say quality is Z. Balance is A. Two other Factors are B and C

For game 1: a(1)+b(1)+c(1)=z(1).
For game 2: a(2)+b(2)+c(2)=z(2).

Now, I say that Game 1 has a higher "A".
a(1) > a(2)

Which Z is higher?

It can't be determined. Because we don't know how other benchmarks of quality (b) and (c).

My statement, from the beginning, was "other things being equal, having a good result with less effort is better than having a good result with more effort".

You are taking it to mean "OMG I 4ED IS BETTER THAN 3.X".

That's just not true. I prefer 3.x. Not for its balance issues though. For its versatility, which is another benchmark.


Except when it's someone's opinion, and they're trying to use a logical argument to pass it off as an objective problem.Except that I'm not. You're just saying I am.

Not at all, I'm implying that appealing to the masses just means that you're appealing to the masses (yay tautology)[/quote]


In fact, I'd say that (in general) popularity is a mark of mediocrity (or even inferiority)
Odd, it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Then again, what do I know? Go figure.

It does not mean that that particular form of entertainment is superior to ones that do not appeal to the masses. I said that in my opinion it's often a sign of mediocrity, and sometimes even a sign of inferiority.Saying that it has ANY correlation at all contradicts your earlier point that popularity has no bearing on quality. You're really battin' a thousand today.

As for the rest of this? I'm not going to continue this. If you want to continue your "less is better than more and awful is better than good" argument, tell it to someone who actually wants to read it.

I don't anymore. In my opinion, your argument couldn't be more artistically crafted to incite a rise out of someone than if you went into it with deliberate intent to do so.

Riffington
2010-03-17, 03:48 PM
It's still a problem, because it took effort and energy for those that did fix it,

This is a problem if it takes excessive effort/energy to fix. There is an optimum amount of tweaking, which is greater than zero. If you have a "perfect" system, you may not develop sufficient experience messing with the rules, which would be unfortunate.



Then again, I'll posit this: Any line of reasoning that heralds the flawed over the flawless, the broken over the functional?

Is a flawed line of reasoning. Have fun with that, Jaya.

Obvious counterexamples:
1. Music. A computer can play Mozart's notes flawlessly; so can many violinists whose parents enrolled them in lessons from an early age. It is the little imperfections that real artists supply that give those notes emotion and meaning.
2. Automobiles. As they've become more and more "perfect", they become less user-serviceable, as any attempted repair will interfere with the strict tolerances. As a result, modern drivers understand their vehicles far less well than did drivers in the 70s. One need only turn on the news to see why this is a concern.
3. Bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that works well stymies and stifles innovation. The bureaucrats are honest and hard-working, and fix every problem that reaches their desk properly signed. A corrupt bureaucracy is far more benign. People know they must rely on themselves, or must bribe the bureaucrats. Either way, things can get done far more effectively than in an honest bureaucracy.
(see Theodore Dalrymple's treatment of this subject in "The Uses of Corruption"

Frosty
2010-03-17, 03:57 PM
Your definition of "flawless" is clearly flawed in these cases.

In music, not injecting emotion into the performance is most likely considered a flaw in and of itself by most people.

Deisgns that are difficult to understand are also flaws.

A Buereacracy is far from flawless. One makes tradeoffs when choosing between one system of governance other another. A bureaucracy is good at certain things and not so good in others. There just hasn't been a flawless system with which to compare.

In all of these cases, there is just flawed vs different-kind-of-flawed, rather than flawed vs flawless.

Gametime
2010-03-17, 04:35 PM
Obvious counterexamples:
1. Music. A computer can play Mozart's notes flawlessly; so can many violinists whose parents enrolled them in lessons from an early age. It is the little imperfections that real artists supply that give those notes emotion and meaning.

Music isn't really something that can be judged objectively. You seem to be equating "perfection" with "accuracy," and they aren't really the same thing at all.


2. Automobiles. As they've become more and more "perfect", they become less user-serviceable, as any attempted repair will interfere with the strict tolerances. As a result, modern drivers understand their vehicles far less well than did drivers in the 70s. One need only turn on the news to see why this is a concern.

A car that works better while still being simple would be "more perfect." A car that works better while requiring an expert to understand it is not unambiguously better. This isn't a case of perfection being bad; it's a case of making tradeoffs of dubious value.


3. Bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that works well stymies and stifles innovation. The bureaucrats are honest and hard-working, and fix every problem that reaches their desk properly signed. A corrupt bureaucracy is far more benign. People know they must rely on themselves, or must bribe the bureaucrats. Either way, things can get done far more effectively than in an honest bureaucracy.

I don't agree with this in the slightest, but let's say it's true. It still doesn't address the issue of perfection being bad, except insofar as "perfect" bad things are worse than imperfect bad things. If bureaucracies are bad, then obviously the more competent the bureaucracy the worse it will be. But that's like saying that perfection is a bad thing because perfect murders are harder to solve; the perfection isn't the bad thing, the murder is.

You could modify the original argument to stipulate that perfection is a good thing only when applied to good things, but I honestly would've thought that was implied. At any rate, since roleplaying games aren't evil, it's not really relevant.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-17, 05:03 PM
1. Music. A computer can play Mozart's notes flawlessly; so can many violinists whose parents enrolled them in lessons from an early age. It is the little imperfections that real artists supply that give those notes emotion and meaning.
Well, the obvious counter to this is:

In any analogy where Music is being equated to balance, the rules are the instrument. The player? Is the playgroup. Which is better? A master violinist with a finely tuned violin, or a master violinist with a violin that has a string out of tune?

2. Automobiles. As they've become more and more "perfect", they become less user-serviceable, as any attempted repair will interfere with the strict tolerances. As a result, modern drivers understand their vehicles far less well than did drivers in the 70s. One need only turn on the news to see why this is a concern.
You are mistaking "advanced" for "perfect".

Note: For those comparing the rules of a game to art, I need to make something clear:

They're not. They're as far from art as it is humanly possible to get.

If the game is a statue, the rules are the chisel. If the game is music, the rules are the instrument.

Rules are tools, not artistic expression. They can be used in the creation of artistic expression, same as many other tools. But comparing a hammer to Beethoven's 5th is a somewhat imperfect analogy.

Jayabalard
2010-03-17, 05:06 PM
A car that works better while still being simple would be "more perfect." A car that works better while requiring an expert to understand it is not unambiguously better. This isn't a case of perfection being bad; it's a case of making tradeoffs of dubious value.I would say that in both cases, neither car is unambiguously better. Whether someone regards one or the other as "better" is dependent on the person, not some sort of objective fact.


Things that are popular and obviously crap (fast food, etc.) aren't necessarily popular for their quality, but their availability, which is a whole separate factor.Certainly, fast food is the item I had most in mind when I added "or even inferiority" ... there's a whole class of things that are popular not because of their quality, but because of their availability (for example: price), and that high level of availability exists as the direct result of poor quality (example: using cheap materials). I think that this is a pretty clear example of how popularity can be an indication of inferiority.


Odd, it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Then again, what do I know? Go figure.How so?

"In fact, I'd say that (in general) popularity is a mark of mediocrity (or even inferiority)"

"It does not mean that that particular form of entertainment is superior to ones that do not appeal to the masses. I said that in my opinion it's often a sign of mediocrity, and sometimes even a sign of inferiority."

Both are clearly statements of of opinion; both statements say that generally/often that popularity is a mark of mediocrity and that it can even be indicative of inferiority.

Unless you think I'm contradicting myself somewhere else? If so, I suspect that either you've misunderstood me again, or I've not been clear enough somewhere.


And my statement was, "All other things being equal, the above is true. This is my opinion, yes. It is also my opinion that it is common sense. Getting a quarter is better than getting a dime. Opinion? Yeah. I'm sure there's someone out there who likes getting the short end of the stick.Apples to oranges. "Getting a quarter is better than getting a dime. " is an opinion based on purely objective, quantifiable, measurable information. On the other hand, the statement: "game system A is better than game system B" is based on purely subjective, qualitative opinion. It's a terrible analogy.


Saying that it has ANY correlation at all contradicts your earlier point that popularity has no bearing on quality. You're really battin' a thousand today.I don't think that's what I said...at least, I haven't been able find that when scanning over what I've ready.

"I don't agree that popularity (longstanding or otherwise) has anything to do with being superior." is not the same thing as "popularity has no bearing on quality" at all. The former means that being popular is not sufficient evidence to make a claim of quality, the latter is a much stronger claim that there is no correlation at all, which I don't think I've said.


In any analogy where Music is being equated to balance, the rules are the instrument. The player? Is the playgroup. Which is better? A master violinist with a finely tuned violin, or a master violinist with a violin that has a string out of tune?Again, I don't think that's really analogous. A better analogy would be: which is better, music that requires a skilled singer for the music to be in tune, or music that can be done by anyone and then is made pitch perfect through the use of autotune. The latter is more perfectly in tune, but I'd say that the former is clearly superior, even though it takes a skilled participant and requires more work.

Frosty
2010-03-17, 05:10 PM
At any rate, since roleplaying games aren't evil, it's not really relevant.

Well, MOST people don't think that RPGs are evil.

Gametime
2010-03-17, 05:25 PM
Certainly, fast food is the item I had most in mind when I added "or even inferiority" ... there's a whole class of things that are popular not because of their quality, but because of their availability (for example: price), and that high level of availability exists as the direct result of poor quality (example: using cheap materials). I think that this is a pretty clear example of how popularity can be an indication of inferiority.



This is true, but it's important to remember that the popularity isn't because of the inferiority, and so there isn't a perfect relation. It's only often true because popularity is increased by availability, which is often related to poorer quality. It doesn't have to be, however. In the case of a game like D&D, especially, I don't think the popularity has anything to do with cost (which is responsible for most of the relationship between popularity, availability, and crappiness), but with ubiquity. Fast food is popular because it's cheap; D&D is popular because it's popular.

Mind, this doesn't necessarily mean that D&D isn't crap, or that fast food is. The point is just that popularity is a complicated enough fact that saying popularity can be indicative of inferiority is technically true, but misleading. It's why something is popular that gives you insight into it's quality (or lack thereof).

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-17, 05:34 PM
Again, I don't think that's really analogous. A better analogy would be: which is better, music that requires a skilled singer for the music to be in tune, or music that can be done by anyone and then is made pitch perfect through the use of autotune. The latter is more perfectly in tune, but I'd say that the former is clearly superior, even though it takes a skilled participant and requires more work.

Hardly. You have a system where there is no compensation method, and a system where there is 100% autotune.

That may be appropriate for say, comparing a backyard game of cops and robbers (no rules, relying entirely on the singer) with chess on a computer (many rules, which are enforced through an outside medium).

In D&D, there is no outside means of establishing balance. The rules are interpreted and mediated by an internal check. A human. This means that a human must use the rules to establish balance.

Now a system that is well balanced will be able to be ran by many people. It takes a minimum of expertise to work.

A system that is poorly balanced will be able to be ran by fewer people. One must have more thorough training to make it work.

Lest you think that complexity is one of those things that is often found in quality? In engineering, math, many forms of art, and much, much more, simplicity is a sign of elegance in design. Why is an AK-47 more widely used than any other gun in existence? A large part of it is its simplicity.

Whether in engineering or business plans, the good answer that is simplest is the one most likely to succeed. THAT is a benchmark of quality.

Therefore, under the analogy that rules are tools that assist humans in performing a task (task being: Play a game), then by the standard of tools?

The simplest tool to use is the one most likely to succeed.

Riffington
2010-03-17, 07:33 PM
Which is better? A master violinist with a finely tuned violin, or a master violinist with a violin that has a string out of tune?

Agreed. Obviously, a deeply flawed ruleset is worse than a mildly flawed ruleset. But that's not what you said before. You said "any flaw is worse than no flaw." It is possible to make a violin that is more perfect than a Stradivarius. More perfect tolerances, makes sounds closer to the specification of a violin, etc. The master musician would do well with such an instrument, but better with the Strad. Its imperfections create a unique "voice", and if he learns to use that voice properly, he does better than with a more perfect instrument.

Now, you may say that D&D's flaws go far past "Strad" territory, into "missing a string" territory. My claim isn't about how flawed D&D is. My claim is that flaws do add something, up to a point.


Your definition of "flawless" is clearly flawed in these cases.
It's Phoenix's definition (as well as the only coherent one). His argument is:
*a system that requires fixes is more flawed than one that doesn't.
*one should prefer an unflawed system to a flawed one.
*therefore, one should prefer a system that doesn't require fixes.

If he defined flawless like you are ("superiority, everything considered"), then his argument would be a tautology in certain sentences and self-contradictory in others.



In music, not injecting emotion into the performance is most likely considered a flaw in and of itself by most people.
It's considered inferior, because we like that imperfection. It is, in fact, the soul of art. And as we've already established, an imperfection is a flaw.
Here, your definition would be meaningless. If those emotional imperfections were consistent with a "flawless" performance, then we could establish a "one true recording" by which all others are measured. We can't because the introduction of new flaws is vital to great art.



Deisgns that are difficult to understand are also flaws.

It's problematic, but it isn't a flaw. It has tighter tolerances (ie fewer flaws).



A Buereacracy is far from flawless. One makes tradeoffs when choosing between one system of governance other another. A bureaucracy is good at certain things and not so good in others. There just hasn't been a flawless system with which to compare.

In all of these cases, there is just flawed vs different-kind-of-flawed, rather than flawed vs flawless.
A flaw in one aspect of the bureaucracy (its complexity) is unrelated to flaws in another aspect (its honesty). As it turns out, flaws in the honesty aspect help fix the system as a whole even if the complexity is held constant.


/carefully ducking the high art/low art discussion.

Gametime
2010-03-17, 08:05 PM
It's considered inferior, because we like that imperfection. It is, in fact, the soul of art. And as we've already established, an imperfection is a flaw.
Here, your definition would be meaningless. If those emotional imperfections were consistent with a "flawless" performance, then we could establish a "one true recording" by which all others are measured. We can't because the introduction of new flaws is vital to great art.



Or, possibly, because variations in musical performance can't be considered "flaws" by any objective measure.

Riffington
2010-03-17, 08:10 PM
Or, possibly, because variations in musical performance can't be considered "flaws" by any objective measure.

Of course they have to be. They may be desirable or undesirable flaws, but there is only one perfection and any deviation from it must be a flaw.

Again, if we start with the definition "a flaw is something bad", then everything PhoenixRivers was saying would be useless: it would boil down to self-contradiction or tautology ("you can't prefer the flawed thing because your calling it flawed means you didn't prefer it")

His argument can only make sense if you define a flaw as a variation from perfection.

Frosty
2010-03-17, 08:34 PM
Of course they have to be. They may be desirable or undesirable flaws, but there is only one perfection and any deviation from it must be a flaw.

Again, if we start with the definition "a flaw is something bad", then everything PhoenixRivers was saying would be useless: it would boil down to self-contradiction or tautology ("you can't prefer the flawed thing because your calling it flawed means you didn't prefer it")

His argument can only make sense if you define a flaw as a variation from perfection.

I think we would all need to agree on a definition of "perfection" first. However, since perfection doesn't exist, I think what we really just need to do is to agree on a system of metrics on which heuristics can be applied. We search for "Good enough" rather than "perfect" since I really don't think we'll ever agree on what's "perfect."

Riffington
2010-03-17, 08:46 PM
I think we would all need to agree on a definition of "perfection" first.
Why would we have to do that?
It is often possible to identify an imperfection without being able to correctly identify the perfection that it fails to realize. This phenomenon occurs in so many fields - cooking, music, spelling, physics...

In this case, Jayalabard and Phoenix are able to identify some D&D rules that are so imperfect as to need to be fixed, even if they are both unaware of the perfect rule.

Godskook
2010-03-17, 08:55 PM
Why would we have to do that?
It is often possible to identify an imperfection without being able to correctly identify the perfection that it fails to realize. This phenomenon occurs in so many fields - cooking, music, spelling, physics...

Because otherwise, what you'd call a flaw is what I'd call perfection.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-03-17, 09:02 PM
Man I was into D&D while it was still underground; then it got all popular and sucked. /hipster

mikethepoor
2010-03-17, 11:04 PM
The entire discussion of the fallacy is hilarious to me, because a lot of people take sides on the whole debate without realizing that both arguments are right. Yes, the system can be fixed. No, that does not mean the system as given isn't broken. If you think it's busted, fix it; if not, it's fine.

OP, do we get coppers for our thoughts?

Zeful
2010-03-17, 11:19 PM
The entire discussion of the fallacy is hilarious to me, because a lot of people take sides on the whole debate without realizing that both arguments are right. Yes, the system can be fixed. No, that does not mean the system as given isn't broken. If you think it's busted, fix it; if not, it's fine.

OP, do we get coppers for our thoughts?

That's what the Oberoni Fallacy is. It's not saying the flaws in a system are bad or fail to lend themselves to a unique experience, just that they exist. After all with acceptance, comes the ability to change.

Riffington
2010-03-18, 04:18 AM
Because otherwise, what you'd call a flaw is what I'd call perfection.

There are multiple possibilities for musical scales. One can have an even-tempered scale, a just scale, multiple other scales. We don't need to agree on which scale is perfect to know that Alyson Hannigan sings out of key, or that a pawnshop violin is out of tune. Despite whatever other virtues they might have (and Alyson Hannigan has many), they have this flaw. If you believe her singing to be perfection, that does not reflect on perfection - only on you.

Many musicians will deliberately tune their instrument a little "bright" or a little "dark". They know they are making their instrument less-perfect, but believe it's better for the repertoire/audience/space. Experts can prefer a thing while noting its deviation from perfection.

Gametime
2010-03-18, 05:54 AM
There are multiple possibilities for musical scales. One can have an even-tempered scale, a just scale, multiple other scales. We don't need to agree on which scale is perfect to know that Alyson Hannigan sings out of key, or that a pawnshop violin is out of tune. Despite whatever other virtues they might have (and Alyson Hannigan has many), they have this flaw. If you believe her singing to be perfection, that does not reflect on perfection - only on you.

Many musicians will deliberately tune their instrument a little "bright" or a little "dark". They know they are making their instrument less-perfect, but believe it's better for the repertoire/audience/space. Experts can prefer a thing while noting its deviation from perfection.

Being able to identify instances of imperfection does not imply that we can identify all instances of imperfection; if we could, then we'd know what the perfection was anyway, by virtue of elimination. Being able to recognize a flaw in one person's performance does not imply that that flaw is the only thing that characterizes perfection, or that perfection could be achieved by simply removing that flaw.

In short, just because some things are obviously bad doesn't mean everything is obviously good or obviously bad.

Again, if you can make something better by making it imperfect, I have to question the definition of perfection you're using. I don't think it's one many people would agree with.

Indon
2010-03-18, 07:32 AM
Person A: I think game system X has a lot of problems like for example the horrible lack of Y [where Y is probably something like class balance].

Person B: Well it's not really a good example of a problem since a lot of DMs can easily tweak the system so that the lack of Y is minimized.

So right here, are you saying that Person B does NOT have a flawed line of reasoning because Person A's dislike of a the lack of Y is a personal preference rather than a real problem?
As I have noted repeatedly, the core of the fallacy claim - that the ability of a DM to change the system does not in and of itself change the system - is true.

But that's not what the fallacy's used for in practice. It's instead used to defend claims that Person A's personal preferences are problems. Arguably, without such usage the 'fallacy' would be a trivial tautology: Of course DMs do not change systems in and of themselves!

That said, I'd also brought up a logical flaw in the fallacy itself, independently from that point, that flaw being that some game systems are meant to be more pliable than others. Example:


Person A: I don't like GURPS because of <X Rule>.

Person B: Then change it, you're the GM. GURPS is meant to be a framework that you customize to your personal gaming preferences, not a game you play out of the box.

Person A: Oberoni Fallacy, RPGs should never expect DMs do anything!

Both of my points could be combined into the following discussion:


Person A: GURPS sucks because of <X Rule>.

Person B: Then change it, you're the GM. GURPS is meant to be a framework that you customize to your personal gaming preferences, not a game you play out of the box.

Person A: Oberoni Fallacy, GURPS still sucks.

Edit:

Balance is one measure of a game's quality. I never said it was the only one. In fact, I believe I stated that it was one measure from the get-go.
Yeah, that's the same fallacy again. You're claiming that your personal preferences for RPGs equates to product quality, basically saying that systems you like are objectively better.

The fact that you have more than one preference doesn't negate this fact. You're still claiming that what you like in an RPG system makes it in some way objectively better.

Riffington
2010-03-18, 09:38 AM
Being able to identify instances of imperfection does not imply that we can identify all instances of imperfection;
True, but we don't need to.
We already found an instance of imperfection (a rule that needs fixed) and are determining whether the game might have been better if it came prefixed, vs if you fixed it yourself. Nobody believes that fixing the rule makes the game perfect; the question is whether that imperfection is necessarily bad, or might actually be good.



Again, if you can make something better by making it imperfect, I have to question the definition of perfection you're using. I don't think it's one many people would agree with.

Other than the writers of the compact-OED?


adjective /perfikt/ 1 having all the required elements, qualities, or characteristics. 2 free from any flaw; faultless. 3 complete; absolute: it made perfect sense

Heck, diamonds. I think you should agree that a perfect diamond is one with a perfect geometric shape and a perfect carbon lattice with no extraneous molecules. An irregularity in shape, a variation in the carbon lattice, or some extraneous molecules would represent a flaw. If major, such a flaw would make the diamond uglier. If minor, such a flaw can improve the diamond.

A similar phenomenon is seen with faces. A perfect face is symmetric, free from blemishes, perfectly-proportioned features, clear skin, etc. Such a face is generically attractive; in general faces are more attractive as they approach that perfection. However, a minor flaw/blemish/asymmetry can make a face exquisitely beautiful; see Cindy Crawford.

Now, if you want our definition to be "the best", it'll mangle Phoenix's argument. Mine (and Phoenix's and the compact OED's) leaves it coherent.

Gametime
2010-03-18, 02:57 PM
Heck, diamonds. I think you should agree that a perfect diamond is one with a perfect geometric shape and a perfect carbon lattice with no extraneous molecules. An irregularity in shape, a variation in the carbon lattice, or some extraneous molecules would represent a flaw. If major, such a flaw would make the diamond uglier. If minor, such a flaw can improve the diamond.

A similar phenomenon is seen with faces. A perfect face is symmetric, free from blemishes, perfectly-proportioned features, clear skin, etc. Such a face is generically attractive; in general faces are more attractive as they approach that perfection. However, a minor flaw/blemish/asymmetry can make a face exquisitely beautiful; see Cindy Crawford.

Now, if you want our definition to be "the best", it'll mangle Phoenix's argument. Mine (and Phoenix's and the compact OED's) leaves it coherent.

I don't think all those definitions apply to faces, though. What are the "required" characteristics of a face, to use the first definition? Well, that's likely to vary depending on the beholder, and frankly that makes more sense to me than the idea that perfection has to be one immutable ideal for any given thing. I don't think the idea of a face free from flaws being "perfect" makes sense in the same way that it does for a diamond.

Even with diamonds, perfection in a lack of flaws is one kind of perfection. It's a weird kind, because it's an aesthetic perfection that isn't necessarily the same thing as beauty; we can appreciate the symmetry of a diamond even if it isn't as beautiful to some people as a minorly "flawed" diamond. When discussing perfection in terms of beauty, however, I again don't think it makes sense to apply an objective analysis.

Notably, the second definition is a lot easier to discuss than the first. The first definition, though, seems the more appropriate for most of your examples. What is a perfect face? According to your line of thinking, it is an unappealing face residing firmly in the uncanny valley. That meshes with one definition of perfection, but not the first one, and it doesn't strike me as a particularly useful use of the word.

The first definition, if I may be exceedingly lame here, has all the characteristics I require of it to express what I mean by "perfection." It is, therefore, a perfect definition for me. It would not surprise me in the least if other people found other definitions more to their liking.

Zeful
2010-03-18, 03:03 PM
Heck, diamonds. I think you should agree that a perfect diamond is one with a perfect geometric shape and a perfect carbon lattice with no extraneous molecules.
What do you mean by "extraneous molecules" exactly? Because what I thought of was a diamond in which all carbon molecules are connected to four other molecules. Which I'm pretty sure is impossible.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-18, 03:42 PM
It's Phoenix's definition (as well as the only coherent one). His argument is:
*a system that requires fixes is more flawed than one that doesn't.
*one should prefer an unflawed system to a flawed one.
*therefore, one should prefer a system that doesn't require fixes.

If he defined flawless like you are ("superiority, everything considered"), then his argument would be a tautology in certain sentences and self-contradictory in others.

It's Phoenix's opinion that you haven't understood phoenix's opinions.

The first is accurate.
The second is not.
The third, based on the second, is not.

See? You're using a warped view of my opinion to attribute claims that I did not make.

My statement was, is, and will be:

"All other things being equal, an object or system that requires tuning in order to function properly is less desirable than an object or system that does not."

That's it. I never made any claims that people should choose more balanced systems over less, because, in most cases, all other things are NOT equal. Some games favor ranged combat. Others, melee. Some favor actions that are not combat at all. Some favor high-power, some favor low-power, some favor variation, some favor balance.

There are a hundred or more different qualities about games that determine how good they are. Balance is one. Many are based on personal preferences, and even availability to play in a specific area (which game designers have little control over) plays a part. The choice of game systems is a personal choice, based on personal preference and availability.

Note: The strad argument is valid to a point. Some people prefer certain imbalances in a game. Advantageous and disadvantageous matchups happen IRL, why not a game?

However, it breaks down at the point of the game simply not functioning at all at certain levels of power. It is possible within the bounds of D&D to build characters that cannot function at DMG levels of play, due to blatant power issues. It's not that hard, actually.

At some point, it goes beyond a "finely crafted instrument's tiny imperfections, which provide subtle harmonic variations, lending to it a more ephemereal sound" and becomes "yeah, that dent? Gus at the factory dropped it when it was being boxed for shipping."

In all honesty? The latter is true with the vast majority of rules issues. Someone dropped the ball in playtesting/design, and an imbalance is created.

EDIT: For the strad argument to have any weight, then the imperfections and balances would have to add to the game, rather than detract.

Show of hands people. How many people here typically play a game of 3.x with absolutely no rules variations or houserules at all?

That is what the "imperfections make it better" argument would lead one to believe.

However, if your group alters a rule? You're tuning the game. You're fixing it. Would the game be closer to what you wanted to play if that rule were already in place? If someone in design had anticipated that desire, and put it in place?

Riffington
2010-03-18, 04:54 PM
It's Phoenix's opinion that you haven't understood phoenix's opinions.

The first is accurate.
The second is not.
The third, based on the second, is not.

See? You're using a warped view of my opinion to attribute claims that I did not make.

My statement was, is, and will be:

"All other things being equal, an object or system that requires tuning in order to function properly is less desirable than an object or system that does not."

All I did was accidentally leave out the "all else being equal."



That's it. I never made any claims that people should choose more balanced systems over less, because, in most cases, all other things are NOT equal. Some games favor ranged combat. Others, melee. Some favor actions that are not combat at all. Some favor high-power, some favor low-power, some favor variation, some favor balance.
Fully granted. But that doesn't change anything I said. So we add in the "all else being equal". I still maintain that a small flaw may improve a game.
Analogy: we both agree that we might prefer a flawed oboe to a perfect recorder. Fine, I accidentally left that out, but not the point.
My point is that all else equal (they're both violins) - the Strad may be better than the perfect violin.



However, it breaks down at the point of the game simply not functioning at all at certain levels of power. It is possible within the bounds of D&D to build characters that cannot function at DMG levels of play, due to blatant power issues. It's not that hard, actually.

At some point, it goes beyond a "finely crafted instrument's tiny imperfections, which provide subtle harmonic variations, lending to it a more ephemereal sound" and becomes "yeah, that dent? Gus at the factory dropped it when it was being boxed for shipping."

Oh, I agree here. My claim is not that D&D is perfect and can't be improved. My point is that you don't want to improve it to perfection - only to a certain point. Having to houserule a little is better than having to houserule everything or not having to houserule anything.



Show of hands people. How many people here typically play a game of 3.x with absolutely no rules variations or houserules at all?

That is what the "imperfections make it better" argument would lead one to believe.
Not quite. My claim is really not that "you should play with flawed rules", (though I don't rule that possibility out) but rather "they should print mildly flawed rules, which you should alter prior to playing".


I don't think all those definitions apply to faces, though. What are the "required" characteristics of a face, to use the first definition?
Symmetry. Smoothness of skin. Proportioned according to the Golden Ratio. etc. Individuals may be more attractive by varying from this, but only if the variation is slight.


Well, that's likely to vary depending on the beholder
Not much. It holds up across cultures, and is even true of infant preferences.


Even with diamonds, perfection in a lack of flaws is one kind of perfection. It's a weird kind, because it's an aesthetic perfection that isn't necessarily the same thing as beauty; we can appreciate the symmetry of a diamond even if it isn't as beautiful to some people as a minorly "flawed" diamond. When discussing perfection in terms of beauty, however, I again don't think it makes sense to apply an objective analysis.
If you don't believe that there is only one "beauty" then you can't possibly talk about perfection of that beauty. Your "perfection" could only mean "what I like" or "what voters like" - not very helpful.
In contrast, it's easy to measure deviation from perfection if we set up the proper criteria. Jewelers look at clarity, color, etc and accurately grade the deviation from perfection; this grading has high inter-observer reliability. It is thus a useful measure.


According to your line of thinking, it is an unappealing face residing firmly in the uncanny valley.
Not according to scientific studies. They show it to be a reliably appealing face.



What do you mean by "extraneous molecules" exactly? Because what I thought of was a diamond in which all carbon molecules are connected to four other molecules. Which I'm pretty sure is impossible.

Inclusions (see http://jewelry.about.com/cs/diamondclarity/a/inclusions.htm which, incidentally, calls them flaws)
There may be some molecules of (for instance) silicon dioxide within a diamond; there could be lithium atoms; etc.

Gametime
2010-03-18, 05:22 PM
Symmetry. Smoothness of skin. Proportioned according to the Golden Ratio. etc. Individuals may be more attractive by varying from this, but only if the variation is slight.

I can't prove this offhand, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that a perfectly symmetrical face is offputting, because faces in real life aren't perfectly symmetrical. In other words (assuming that's true), perfection in symmetry detracts from perfection in another area (beauty). That's part of my point - "perfection" is a meaningless concept unless you specify what qualities you are trying to perfect.


If you don't believe that there is only one "beauty" then you can't possibly talk about perfection of that beauty. Your "perfection" could only mean "what I like" or "what voters like" - not very helpful.
In contrast, it's easy to measure deviation from perfection if we set up the proper criteria. Jewelers look at clarity, color, etc and accurately grade the deviation from perfection; this grading has high inter-observer reliability. It is thus a useful measure.

But that's my whole point - that perfection, at least in relation to beauty, is entirely relative. Perfection in games is, too. I think that has something to do with what we were discussing, although at this point I've sort of lost track. :smalltongue:


Not according to scientific studies. They show it to be a reliably appealing face.

I'll understand if you can't find the data, but I'd be interested to see those studies and the sort of methodology they used to account for possible cultural bias. (Not snarking here - actually interested.) As I mentioned above, I think I've read something that indicates appealing faces lack perfect symmetry, although I think you're right that certain features have a universal appeal.


Inclusions (see http://jewelry.about.com/cs/diamondclarity/a/inclusions.htm which, incidentally, calls them flaws)
There may be some molecules of (for instance) silicon dioxide within a diamond; there could be lithium atoms; etc.

From what I can tell, though, this link seems to be using "perfect" to mean "absolutely best." There's no indication that flaws improve a diamond; the best I could find was a reassurance that most flaws don't seriously detract from the diamond's quality.

If that's the case, then flaws remain a negative feature. All I've been arguing is that if flaws improve something, then they aren't flaws at all. (At least, not on one axis of judgment - obviously, a flaw in one area could be an improvement in another, but if the advantages aren't total then the "flawless" version clearly isn't perfect anyway.)

Perhaps we should distinguish between absolute perfection, which really can only be applied to certain things, and qualitative perfection, which measures the flaws (or lack thereof) of a specific quality?

Riffington
2010-03-18, 07:22 PM
I can't prove this offhand, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that a perfectly symmetrical face is offputting,
Yeah, so what they did is, they did a mirror image face (mirror left/left or mirror right/right) which is the easiest way to make a perfectly symmetrical face, but is highly unusual. That was not particularly appealing.

A face made symmetrical by being a composite of multiple faces was much more attractive (although not Cindy Crawford attractive).

The exact factors that make faces attractive are not well known, and I probably overstated things calling it "science". It's not quite there yet.



From what I can tell, though, this link seems to be using "perfect" to mean "absolutely best." There's no indication that flaws improve a diamond; the best I could find was a reassurance that most flaws don't seriously detract from the diamond's quality.
Note that it calls a colorless diamond perfect; this is indeed the color of pure carbon. A red diamond is as flawed as a yellow one, but is far more desirable and valuable.


Perhaps we should distinguish between absolute perfection, which really can only be applied to certain things, and qualitative perfection, which measures the flaws (or lack thereof) of a specific quality?
What do you see as the difference there? You mean that a circle can be perfect in every regard, whereas a song can't simultaneusly be perfect in pitch/tone while also being emotional like we like it?

Gametime
2010-03-18, 07:38 PM
What do you see as the difference there? You mean that a circle can be perfect in every regard, whereas a song can't simultaneusly be perfect in pitch/tone while also being emotional like we like it?

I'm honestly not sure. I mean, I'm having trouble with the idea of "perfection" that isn't ascribed to a particular quality; perfect shape, or perfect symmetry, or something. Even that's problematic, but it carries less baggage than abstract "perfection" (which is still meant to refer to qualities, I think, but less clearly so; a perfect face probably refers to perfection in terms of beauty, and so forth).

At any rate, I think we agree on the principles but disagree on the words to describe them, for the most part.

Tehnar
2010-03-18, 08:51 PM
I don't see a circle (or any geometric shape) to be perfect, or not. A circle is what it is defined to be, a set of points a fixed distance from another point. When drawing free hand you might get a "perfect circle", or a geometric form very similar to a circle; but I wouldn't call a true circle perfect, it just is. The free hand drawing is just approaching a abstract idea (though well defined idea in this case).

I can't define a perfect system, but I can tell what I look for in a system:

a) the fluff or the setting: what does a RPG system assume typical play will look like. Will it be more oriented at problem solving or combat? Some systems have the fluff very strongly linked to them (for example Shadowrun or Lot5R), while some very little (GURPS).
b) the mechanics: do they work well enough to describe important things (from a gamer perspective) in the setting. Are there any major holes or quirks that downgrade the playing experience? Are there any perks with mechanics that bring the system to life?
c) the malleability of the mechanics: can you homebrew something quickly and efficiently so it still makes sense with the mechanics inherent to the system. Can you change mechanics so the system still works?

In the end I would say you can't use the Oberoni fallacy as a general blanket term. It might apply in some case, but even if it applies, that won't prevent people who ate having fun with the system to continue playing it (and defending it).

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-18, 09:43 PM
Yeah, that's the same fallacy again. You're claiming that your personal preferences for RPGs equates to product quality, basically saying that systems you like are objectively better.

The fact that you have more than one preference doesn't negate this fact. You're still claiming that what you like in an RPG system makes it in some way objectively better.

I AM NOT.

I prefer 3.5, which is a poorly (IMO) balanced system. Perhaps not as much as some, but the system has many, many issues. This is an issue I don't like about it.

So... how exactly am I stating that systems I like (D&D 3.x) are objectively better, when the point I'm making is the exact OPPOSITE of what the system's strengths are.

I'm really getting sick and freaking tired of half the people in this thread telling me what I'm saying. Really. PLEASE. I know what I'm saying.

And I'm not saying these opinions that you're taking by taking one line of my text, expanding this giant mass of rubbish, and claiming it as my post.

The next time you attribute to me something that I'm not claiming or saying, you're on my block list. So please. PLEASE. Verify that I said something before you start attributing thoughts to me that exist only in your own head.

All I did was accidentally leave out the "all else being equal."It's STILL wrong, even with that.

Nobody, under any circumstances, should ever tell someone else what they should choose, or should like. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT. Much like the last person, this is an argument that you attribute to me, that exists exclusively within the confines of your own head.


Fully granted. But that doesn't change anything I said. So we add in the "all else being equal". I still maintain that a small flaw may improve a game.Name how.

The scale we're talking about on most systems with imbalances?

Comparing a Perfect violin to one that has all the strings, but the sounding board is warped, and all the strings are out of tune.

We're not talking, again, about "subtle imperfections". We're talking about rules that, if played as they exist, render the game nonfunctional in many instances.

Analogy: we both agree that we might prefer a flawed oboe to a perfect recorder. Fine, I accidentally left that out, but not the point.Right. Because there are no perfect Recorders.

But let's take an oboe flawed in these ways, and compare it to a recorder that's flawed in different ways. My argument is that if Gus hadn't dropped the thing when it was in shipping, it would only have those small flaws. Less flawed is better than more flawed.

This was then taken to extremes (by others). Incidentally, did you know that extremes are where most arguments break down into absurdity? Imagine that. People who disagree with my point take it to the farthest reaches of impossibility, to argue it's absurd... However, for all practical purposes, less flawed is better than more flawed. Why else would game designers spend so much on Beta Testers? They want to find where Gus the Design Assistant dropped the box. The want to reduce the flaws, on the grounds that it's impossible to remove all the flaws, but you get out the ones you can, and it makes it better.


My point is that all else equal (they're both violins) - the Strad may be better than the perfect violin.My original point wasn't about the "perfect violin". That was my argument, stretched and twisted to the point of absurdity.

Let me tell you. I haven't seen a game system on the market that's the design equivalent to the Strad, much less the perfect violin. Thus? The argument you make exists solely in theoretical discussion, and has no practical application.


Oh, I agree here. My claim is not that D&D is perfect and can't be improved. My point is that you don't want to improve it to perfection - only to a certain point. Having to houserule a little is better than having to houserule everything or not having to houserule anything.So what you're saying is... Less flaws in D&D would be better, as long as you don't strive for an imaginary perfect that's impossible to reach?

Wow, that sounds eerily similar to my ENTIRE POINT.


Not quite. My claim is really not that "you should play with flawed rules", (though I don't rule that possibility out) but rather "they should print mildly flawed rules, which you should alter prior to playing".I say that they WILL print, at best, mildly flawed rules. Why not try to limit them. Your planing tool isn't perfect, and it makes each violin a bit different. That doesn't mean you also kick the violin in post assembly. Something tells me that's not how Strad's were made. They strive for perfection, and the limit of their ability determines the quality.

NOTE: I'm not trying to be hard on you, Riff. My claim is that my point has been misrepresented and twisted. I don't feel that our views are too dissimilar, but after some of the others have told everyone what I'm thinking, what I ACTUALLY think has kinda gotten lost along the way.

Riffington
2010-03-19, 06:31 AM
I AM NOT.
I think the reason I'm misunderstanding is:


Nobody, under any circumstances, should ever tell someone else what they should choose, or should like. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT.
I don't understand what it means to call X a problem (and not just "it was a problem for me") without implying "you should choose/like/prefer not to have X".



Name how.

Two main ways, in a game like D&D.
First, by forcing the DM to houserule a major issue, you give him practice houseruling (and the players practice accepting houserules), thus helping when it's time to houserule a more minor issue.
Second, we seem to agree that imbalance is a problem. But a lot of people derive great enjoyment from creating characters that take advantage of the loopholes and imbalances in order to optimize. I probably like this less than the average person on this board, and I've definitely derived some enjoyment from exploring the brokenness.



We're talking about rules that, if played as they exist, render the game nonfunctional in many instances.
There are certainly some rules I wish WotC had fixed. There are other rules that I fix, but would rather WotC (or Paizo) not fix. For instance, "Common" makes no sense from a linguistic/historical point of view, but it's a useful oversimplification, and I'd rather everything in the book use that oversimplification because it's easier to figure out languages based on the specific campaign.



This was then taken to extremes (by others). Incidentally, did you know that extremes are where most arguments break down into absurdity?

Ah, well, if you only believe it up to a point then I agree with you.


I haven't seen a game system on the market that's the design equivalent to the Strad, much less the perfect violin. Thus? The argument you make exists solely in theoretical discussion, and has no practical application...
So what you're saying is... Less flaws in D&D would be better, as long as you don't strive for an imaginary perfect that's impossible to reach?

Not quite. Because there exist easily-identifiable flaws in D&D that I'd rather not have the game designers fix. Such as the existence of Common. Such as the overpoweredness of the Cleric.


NOTE: I'm not trying to be hard on you, Riff. My claim is that my point has been misrepresented and twisted. I don't feel that our views are too dissimilar, but after some of the others have told everyone what I'm thinking, what I ACTUALLY think has kinda gotten lost along the way.

I'm not sure how to fix this. It's frustrating.

Indon
2010-03-19, 07:25 AM
I AM NOT.

Okay, then, I'll ask for confirmation before accusing you of saying things.



Comparing a Perfect violin to one that has all the strings, but the sounding board is warped, and all the strings are out of tune.

We're not talking, again, about "subtle imperfections". We're talking about rules that, if played as they exist, render the game nonfunctional in many instances.
So, right here.

Are you, or are you not, claiming that imbalance is a flaw (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flaw) in an RPG?


So what you're saying is... Less flaws in D&D would be better, as long as you don't strive for an imaginary perfect that's impossible to reach?

Wow, that sounds eerily similar to my ENTIRE POINT.
And here. Are you, here, claiming that games are objectively better when they have fewer flaws?

And, in the remote event that both of the above are the case, would I be going too far to infer that you are claiming that imbalance is a flaw in an RPG that is to be corrected?

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-19, 08:02 AM
Okay, then, I'll ask for confirmation before accusing you of saying things.


So, right here.

Are you, or are you not, claiming that imbalance is a flaw (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flaw) in an RPG?
I are not.

I am claiming that severe imbalances are flaws. I do like how you skim over the earlier messages where I state that I'm not referring to things like comparing the power level of barbarians to the power level of fighters, and criticizing imbalances.

I'm talking parts of the game that are so fundamentally skewed as to cause a breakdown of the game if taken purely at face value. Parts of the game that allow for level 3 and 4 characters (or lower) handily trounce a CR 16 (or higher) challenge.

I do not consider dismemberment and a paper cut to be the same. Why on earth would you assume I lump gems like Pun-Pun and Simulacrum abuse with monk vs warlock class balance?

And here. Are you, here, claiming that games are objectively better when they have fewer flaws?By my earlier definition of flaw? Yes.


And, in the remote event that both of the above are the case, would I be going too far to infer that you are claiming that imbalance is a flaw in an RPG that is to be corrected?
In the remote event that both were correct, then no, you wouldn't. But as you steadfastly missed the point.... AGAIN... Then yes, you would. At least your track record is consistent. I'll give you that.



I don't understand what it means to call X a problem (and not just "it was a problem for me") without implying "you should choose/like/prefer not to have X".I'm sorry that you don't understand that. I consider it the height of rudeness to tell someone what to do without right. It's no more my place to tell you what aspects of a game to prioritize than it's yours to tell me.


Two main ways, in a game like D&D.
First, by forcing the DM to houserule a major issue, you give him practice houseruling (and the players practice accepting houserules), thus helping when it's time to houserule a more minor issue.Is this anything like saying that by putting someone in an out of control Toyota, you make them better at handling rush hour traffic?


Second, we seem to agree that imbalance is a problem. But a lot of people derive great enjoyment from creating characters that take advantage of the loopholes and imbalances in order to optimize. I probably like this less than the average person on this board, and I've definitely derived some enjoyment from exploring the brokenness.For the same reason that people derive enjoyment from pointing out blatant editing errors in movies (such as Dodgeball. Main bad guy gets slammed into a wall, leaving a fake tan streak. Camera changes angle, then changes back, and fake tan streak is gone.)

Even those people fully acknowledge that it's a game flaw. They choose the system anyway, because of their like for exploring flaws. See? A perfectly valid reason why it's not the best idea to tell someone what they should like.



Not quite. Because there exist easily-identifiable flaws in D&D that I'd rather not have the game designers fix. Such as the existence of Common. Such as the overpoweredness of the Cleric.Just because a flaw is easy to identify does not mean it's easy to fix. Both of the above fall into that category. Either you rework languages and communication from the ground up, an entire class mechanic from the ground up, or you accept that.

Class balance issues are far too subjective for anyone to really get a mass agreement. Heck, there are people on this board who claim monk is as strong as wizard. Class balance issues are small potatoes, on the scheme of things.

I'm not sure how to fix this. It's frustrating.
Tell me about it.

Riffington
2010-03-19, 08:19 AM
I'm sorry that you don't understand that. I consider it the height of rudeness to tell someone what to do without right. It's no more my place to tell you what aspects of a game to prioritize than it's yours to tell me.
Wait, help me understand (sorry, I can't do this without telling you what to do):
so when you say "X is rude" how is that not saying "you shouldn't do that unless you have a good reason"? Or when you tell me that something isn't "my place", how is that different from telling me not to tell you what to prioritize?




Is this anything like saying that by putting someone in an out of control Toyota, you make them better at handling rush hour traffic?

Well, that's certainly true (though an exaggeration). Yes - experience with out-of-control cars (Toyotas being safer than the average car, but more in the media today) will be a helpful learning experience - but I'd rather practice skidding in a parking lot. Might be illegal/dangerous, but it's safer than never having done it.


A perfectly valid reason why it's not the best idea to tell someone what they should like.
Hrm.. I'm wondering if you may mean "tell" much more strongly than I do? I see the situation as "I tell them why they should like movies without these flaws; they then tell me why I should like movies with them; I learned something and can now possibly start enjoying movies in that new way"


Just because a flaw is easy to identify does not mean it's easy to fix. Fair enough.

Indon
2010-03-19, 08:20 AM
I do not consider dismemberment and a paper cut to be the same. Why on earth would you assume I lump gems like Pun-Pun and Simulacrum abuse with monk vs warlock class balance?
By my earlier definition of flaw? Yes.
Ah, I see. Indeed, I was confused - because the Oberoni fallacy is generally cited as a result on things that can actually see play, like class power differences, and not in application to theoretical expoits.

Because patently ludicrous abuse like Pun-Pun really is just theoretical, and generally isn't taken seriously as flaws in the game.

Here you could indeed correctly cite the Oberoni Fallacy - that the ludicrousness of Pun-Pun and that any GM would shut it down does not mean the game doesn't still have that theoretically possible exploit - and in turn I'd argue that while you were factually correct, your argument would nonetheless not be relevant.

A problem that does not or can not see actual play is only a problem in theory - not in reality. Removing the potential for such problems would not improve the game in play (though it may reduce internet discussion of them, which may be desirable), and fixes for such potential problems could in fact prove detrimental to the game in play - say, changing a monster to remove an interesting ability just because a player can use an obscure series of rules to exploit it.

Gametime
2010-03-19, 11:28 AM
Ah, I see. Indeed, I was confused - because the Oberoni fallacy is generally cited as a result on things that can actually see play, like class power differences, and not in application to theoretical expoits.

Because patently ludicrous abuse like Pun-Pun really is just theoretical, and generally isn't taken seriously as flaws in the game.

Here you could indeed correctly cite the Oberoni Fallacy - that the ludicrousness of Pun-Pun and that any GM would shut it down does not mean the game doesn't still have that theoretically possible exploit - and in turn I'd argue that while you were factually correct, your argument would nonetheless not be relevant.

A problem that does not or can not see actual play is only a problem in theory - not in reality. Removing the potential for such problems would not improve the game in play (though it may reduce internet discussion of them, which may be desirable), and fixes for such potential problems could in fact prove detrimental to the game in play - say, changing a monster to remove an interesting ability just because a player can use an obscure series of rules to exploit it.

I think it's fair to say that there is a wide enough gap between monks being weak and Pun-Pun being strong that there are game-breaking flaws that could see play.

Take skill boosting, for example. Diplomacy abuse, Bluff abuse...heck, even Handle Animal Abuse can have you carting around CR16 dinosaurs by level 4.

Gametime
2010-03-19, 11:29 AM
I don't understand what it means to call X a problem (and not just "it was a problem for me") without implying "you should choose/like/prefer not to have X".



This is interesting to me, because it seems to match up fine with our earlier discussion on flaws. Weren't you arguing that flaws don't necessarily make things any less desirable, in certain circumstances?

Riffington
2010-03-19, 04:10 PM
This is interesting to me, because it seems to match up fine with our earlier discussion on flaws. Weren't you arguing that flaws don't necessarily make things any less desirable, in certain circumstances?

Yes. Among other things, I was arguing that flaw and problem are not synonyms. Perhaps more importantly, the context of a larger discussion could help describe what "this is a flaw (or problem)" means. If you point out a flaw in a large overall context, it's a bit of a different implication than if you are focusing on something as a flaw. Flaw doesn't logically imply a problem, but it is a word that is often used to describe a problem.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-19, 06:29 PM
Wait, help me understand (sorry, I can't do this without telling you what to do):
so when you say "X is rude" how is that not saying "you shouldn't do that unless you have a good reason"? Or when you tell me that something isn't "my place", how is that different from telling me not to tell you what to prioritize?No, when I say that "X is rude", I mean that I find X to be rude. It also means that I don't appreciate being attributed to saying X, and I'm not too fond of X being said to me. If such action goes on for long enough, I would make the decision to not continue a conversation with such an individual. Note: I'm not putting demands on others, merely altering my own actions to avoid that which I find distasteful.

As for not "our place", I've seen more egregrious comments of that nature scrubbed on this board. That's why I typically avoid such comments. "it's not my place" doesn't mean "don't do this". It means (for me) "I won't do this, and if this is done to me, I will react as I would to something I find distasteful."


Well, that's certainly true (though an exaggeration). Yes - experience with out-of-control cars (Toyotas being safer than the average car, but more in the media today) will be a helpful learning experience - but I'd rather practice skidding in a parking lot. Might be illegal/dangerous, but it's safer than never having done it.That's the point. "gaining practice with major exploits" comes at a cost. Less experienced DMs lose games, gaming groups, and sometimes the privilege of DMing to such things.


Hrm.. I'm wondering if you may mean "tell" much more strongly than I do? I see the situation as "I tell them why they should like movies without these flaws; they then tell me why I should like movies with them; I learned something and can now possibly start enjoying movies in that new way"I do mean tell more strongly than you do. That may be the source of the confusion. I see it as a more imperative, more of a command. Hence why I find it rude.

Riffington
2010-03-20, 04:49 PM
I do mean tell more strongly than you do. That may be the source of the confusion. I see it as a more imperative, more of a command. Hence why I find it rude.

Hrm, so which of these do you think is more rude?
[person is smoking next to you at bus stop and you hate smoke]
"Hey, could you please not smoke near me?"
"Your smoking is making me very unhappy".