The applicability of the Oberoni Fallacy

[AjaxTorbin]

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]

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]

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.

[Yukitsu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Kurald Galain, PhoenixRivers, very nice and eloquent analysis on your part. You said it much better than I have.

[RagnaroksChosen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is it that time of the Month?
Are we going to discuss the Jelly Moo principle next?

[taltamir]

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]

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

[Indon]

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]

I want to know more about this jelly moo

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

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]

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]

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 Or perhaps the Metafallacy.

[PhoenixRivers]

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]

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.