PDA

View Full Version : Trying to remember a piece of forum wisdom



Hish
2020-06-12, 05:25 PM
I remember seeing a quote to the effect of “Just because a rule can be easily houseruled so it works, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad rule.” But it was worded better.

I think it was in someone’s forum sig, but I can’t remember if it was here or on MinMax. Does anyone remember it?
Also, does anyone else have any other pithy forum wisdom like this or like Grod’s Law? I want to compile a list.

tyckspoon
2020-06-12, 05:29 PM
That one is commonly known as the 'Oberoni Fallacy.' I can't promise to where it came from, but Google suggests this as an originating post way back in the mists of time on WotC's own forums:


The Oberoni Fallacy is named after user "Oberoni" who made the following post to the Wizards D&D forum on July 23, 2002:

This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

No canonical short form of it or pithy statement, but 'The ability to houserule a problematic rule does not stop the rule from being a problem' is a decent one I think.

dancrilis
2020-06-12, 06:26 PM
Does anyone remember it?

I don't know but it can be fun to try to make our own.

“Just because a rule can be easily houseruled so it works, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad rule.”
"Just because it is a bad rule doesn't mean your house rule isn't worse".
"Just because you don't understand a rule doesn't mean it isn't a good rule".
"Just because a rule is easy to change doesn't mean it should be".

For my three suggestions that kindof say the same thing and let all say something different.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-06-12, 09:20 PM
The Stormwind Fallacy (http://dictummortuum.github.io/2017/11/25/stormwind-fallacy.html) is a classic.

Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a character plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized

The Guy at the Gym Fallacy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) comes up a lot in discussions here, too.

Because [martial characters] do things that we can do, they cannot do things we cannot do

Waker collected a bunch of them here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?531042-Giant-in-the-Courthouse&highlight=giant+in+the+courthouse).


or like Grod’s Law?
:smallredface:

Anonymouswizard
2020-06-13, 06:52 AM
That one is commonly known as the 'Oberoni Fallacy.' I can't promise to where it came from, but Google suggests this as an originating post way back in the mists of time on WotC's own forums:



No canonical short form of it or pithy statement, but 'The ability to houserule a problematic rule does not stop the rule from being a problem' is a decent one I think.

Yep, Oberoni Fallacy. It's basically 'fixable is not the same as working'.

The Oberoni Fallacy, the Stormwind Fallacy ('optimisation and roleplaying are not inversely correlated'), and Grod's Law ('you shall not balance mechanics by making them awkward to use') are probably the three I see the most after 'no gaming is better than bad gaming'.

I'm also a fan of Rule -1 for when people try to bring up Rule Zero to support GM Tyranny, 'the players are also free to go'.

Cluedrew
2020-06-13, 08:14 AM
I agree one what it is but I have my favourite way to state it well:

Oberoni Fallacy: The fact that something can be fixed doesn't mean it isn't broken.

I have two other pieces of wisdom to offer. The first is rarely used but very relevant, the Anti-Oberoni Fallacy "The fact that something can be broken doesn't mean it is." and is kind of a warning against over using the Oberoni Fallacy. The big example for this to me is the Mutants and Masterminds Array Power. Its been a little but as I recall this power feature starts by explaining how it can be used to multiply your number of powers and then goes onto explain all the limits on this. However because the limits are explained in more general terms about how this should be different manifestations of the same ability I saw claimed that the rule was broken and claiming that following these "guidelines" was an application of the Oberoni Fallacy. Ultimately, just make sure to follow the limits on M&M's Power Array rules, whether part of the rule or a sperate guideline they will improve your game.

The second is a bit of a joke: The Playgrounder's Fallacy. Which isn't actually a logical fallacy so much as a reminder that in a system agnostic discussion, it is a system agnostic discussion and not just about D&D/D&D 3.X/D&D 3.5. Which is something people on this forum seem to forget a lot.

Jorren
2020-06-13, 11:58 AM
The second is a bit of a joke: The Playgrounder's Fallacy. Which isn't actually a logical fallacy so much as a reminder that in a system agnostic discussion, it is a system agnostic discussion and not just about D&D/D&D 3.X/D&D 3.5. Which is something people on this forum seem to forget a lot.

That's not a fallacy. That's more like an immutable law on these forums. I have to constantly remember that some people have no other frame of reference for RPGs other than D&D.

Quertus
2020-06-13, 12:40 PM
Oberoni Fallacy: The fact that something can be fixed doesn't mean [that] it isn't broken.

This is probably the best wording for it [that] I've heard (give or that the "that" that I've added). I say go with that.

Others have said "player > build > class".

My own advice - though not as universally accepted - is "balance to the table".

Porcupinata
2020-06-16, 03:01 AM
Stormwind Fallacy ('optimisation and roleplaying are not inversely correlated'.

You're making the classic mistake there of conflating correlation with causation.

The "Stormwind Fallacy" states that a highly optimised character can also be roleplayed well, and a well roleplayed character can also be optimised - i.e. that the two are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say anything about how often the two are found together.

Everyone's experience will be different, but majority opinion seems to be that the two do in fact have a rather strong inverse correlation. They have enough of an inverse correlation that people feel the need to quote the "fallacy" at every opportunity in order to reassure that just because the two are rarely found together doesn't mean that they can't be found together (with the oft-unspoken implication that the person quoting the "fallacy" is one of the minority that does, in fact, roleplay highly optimised characters well).

Cluedrew
2020-06-16, 06:05 PM
That's not a fallacy. That's more like an immutable law on these forums. I have to constantly remember that some people have no other frame of reference for RPGs other than D&D.Yeah I know, it was originally called Giantism or maybe Giantitis... point is it had a different name originally that didn't call it stick because it wasn't very memorable.

Plus although it is might not be faulty reasoning it can get in the way of clear conversation. And it apparently it is old enough to be in that courtroom thread to, I didn't realize it had gotten that old.


This is probably the best wording for it [that] I've heard (give or that the "that" that I've added). I say go with that.Sure go with [that]. Grammar isn't one of my strong suites (to the point I don't know if the "that" is actually required) and it is still snappy.

JNAProductions
2020-06-16, 07:05 PM
You're making the classic mistake there of conflating correlation with causation.

The "Stormwind Fallacy" states that a highly optimised character can also be roleplayed well, and a well roleplayed character can also be optimised - i.e. that the two are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say anything about how often the two are found together.

Everyone's experience will be different, but majority opinion seems to be that the two do in fact have a rather strong inverse correlation. They have enough of an inverse correlation that people feel the need to quote the "fallacy" at every opportunity in order to reassure that just because the two are rarely found together doesn't mean that they can't be found together (with the oft-unspoken implication that the person quoting the "fallacy" is one of the minority that does, in fact, roleplay highly optimised characters well).

See, in my experience, people tend to have a minor correlation that the two go TOGETHER.

People who invest a lot of time into optimizing their characters are usually those folk who CARE about playing. So while their backstory might not be as fully fleshed out as someone who spent the same time writing, they still roleplay at the table well.

It's not a super strong correlation, but that's my experience.

icefractal
2020-06-16, 07:28 PM
They have enough of an inverse correlation that people feel the need to quote the "fallacy" at every opportunity in order to reassure that just because the two are rarely found together doesn't mean that they can't be found together (with the oft-unspoken implication that the person quoting the "fallacy" is one of the minority that does, in fact, roleplay highly optimised characters well).IME, very few people consistently roleplay well enough to stand up to non-friendly judging, with or without optimization.

And how are you defining "well" anyway? Between someone who always gets into character (but those characters are stereotypical cliches), and someone who has moments of RP brilliance that everyone remembers (but not that often, less than once a session on average), which is the better roleplayer?

I guess there is a "if you're not roleplaying, get the **** out of the spotlight" perspective where optimization is a negative, but I'd say in that case it'd be better to play a system where only RP can get you the spotlight in the first place.