Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[Chaos Jackal]

"I am really bothered this game doesn't have robust social encounter rules"
"The rules we have work fine for my game."

The two players here are just disagreeing about what the game needs. No logical fallacy in sight.

Very true. Doesn't mean the bothered side is wrong all the time for being bothered or that being bothered is pointless and even unhealthy like some have suggested, however.

[strangebloke]

Primarily because it's not an on or off switch.

There being some holes or soft spots in the rules, to where it's (as a body of work) 88% good, or 77% good, or 92 % good, all fit within the parameters 'playable and coherent" as well as "good enough" (And 5e certainly meets that 80% solution at the very least, my Rotten Tomatoes style rating puts it in the low 90's high 80's score - biggest short falls are gaps in "how to DM if you are a new DM" as the most disappointing omission, the other disappointment being using 90 words when 60 would do in so many cases ...).

With a CRPG, on the other hand, that level of 'rule' (actually, game code) being in a state of disconnect kills it.

I get what you're saying but "broken" doesn't strictly mean nonfunctional these days, not in TTPRGs nor in computer games. A character or strategy will be said to be broken if it breaks any aspect of the game's (usually competitive) core challenge.

Still debateable if such a word really applies to DND 5e but that's just how language is.

[Pex]

Which is a load of bollocks.
It's core flawed, and false, assumption is that the rules define the game. That paradigm isn't what D&D is all about, and never has been. (Kuntz made some interesting comments on this in his book about Dave Arneson, but I'm getting a bit off topic here)

RPGs were a new and paradigm breaking game form when they came out. A few of the major differences were (1) the game didn't have a start and end point (2) winning and losing weren't really on the table (3) the rules only got you started. They didn't take you end to end. A few years into that, TSR started adding the tag line "Products of your imagination" to their little logo, a point that keeps going over the heads of folks who ignorantly chirp out Oberoni Fallacy as though it has any meaning.

As Dave Wesley once noted about wargaming with miniatures, and the role play he folded into his games that fused the Diplomacy play style, play to find out, all based on historical warfare from Napoleonic era wargame campaigns, was that the tension between balance, playability, and realism is never ending. Finding the sweetspot is very difficult. (As was already known about miniatures war games). They required effort and a never ending source of tinkering, but all of those games had an interface between the rules and the players: the referee. (D&D's referee began with that name but the name is now DM). His own Braunstein games required no small amount of tinkering for them to work.

One of the things that Phoenix has dead right, time and again, in these discussions is the rules as your tool box model. It's been true since the beginning. I will try to express that somewhat differently, and in my own words:

The relationship (or maybe the interface?) between the rules, the DM, and the players is dynamic rather than static. (I am only about 80 percent there on this word phrase, I may need to tweak it to get it to fit better). see what I did there?

And they, which is RPGs in general, have kept evolving. (Well, in the Forge's case, mutating).
Which takes us to some games where a rules centric play style is a better fit, but that's off topic for the 5e forum and better suited to the general roleplaying forum.

You're misunderstanding the fallacy. The Oberoni Fallacy makes no value judgment on the rules. It's not about the rules. One person can like a rule. Another person can not like a rule. They discuss their reasons. No Oberoni Fallacy. The Fallacy comes in when the person who likes the rule tells the person who doesn't like a rule he should like the rule because he can change it. It's irrelevant he can change it. The person who doesn't like the rule may already be doing that, but that doesn't mean he should be liking the rule because of it. He's still not liking the rule for whatever his reason is.

It's a different matter when a person who likes a rule tells the person who doesn't like a rule to shut up about it. That's not Oberoni Fallacy. That's something else.

[Cheesegear]

The Fallacy comes in when the person who likes the rule tells the person who doesn't like a rule he should like the rule because he can change it...

Barbarians are pretty bad at social situations, since Charisma is usually their dump stat and they have nothing mechanically that really shores that weakness up.
'Barbarians aren't bad at social situations because I gave them bonuses on Insight and Intimidation.'
So you're saying that Barbarians are bad and need fixing?
'No. I'm saying they're not bad because I fixed them.'

That's the fallacy. Easy. Rather than try and explain what the Oberoni Fallacy is...How 'bout you just give an example relevant to the thread?

[Pex]

Barbarians are pretty bad at social situations, since Charisma is usually their dump stat and they have nothing mechanically that really shores that weakness up.
'Barbarians aren't bad at social situations because I gave them bonuses on Insight and Intimidation.'
So you're saying that Barbarians are bad and need fixing?
'No. I'm saying they're not bad because I fixed them.'

That's the fallacy. Easy. Rather than try and explain what the Oberoni Fallacy is...How 'bout you just give an example relevant to the thread?

I did a few times already.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Fallacy comes in when the person who likes the rule tells the person who doesn't like a rule he should like the rule because he can change it.

Uh, how's that again? I can dislike a rule or like a rule; that's got nothing to do with what I am talking about.
{Example, I utterly dislike the six ability scores for six different saves, and you only ever get better at two (with a few exceptions or an optional rule (feat) offering one more), and yet still like the game since the rules as a whole fit together well and the relationship between the players, the GM, and the rules is dynamic not static}.

FWIW, I think that the alleged Oberoni Fallacy tries to reach a bit higher than you describe ... as it's based on a condemnation of a philosophy).

The point is about the role of the rules in the game, particularly in trad games, and the glib dismissal seen on page one of this thread.
(It is quite possible that we are talking at cross purposes here).

[strangebloke]

Uh, how's that again? I can dislike a rule or like a rule; that's got nothing to do with what I am talking about.
{Example, I utterly dislike the six ability scores for six different saves, and you only ever get better at two (with a few exceptions or an optional rule (feat) offering one more), and yet still like the game since the rules as a whole fit together well and the relationship between the players, the GM, and the rules is dynamic not static}.

FWIW, I think that the alleged Oberoni Fallacy tries to reach a bit higher than you describe ... as it's based on a condemnation of a philosophy).

The point is about the role of the rules in the game, particularly in trad games, and the glib dismissal seen on page one of this thread.
(It is quite possible that we are talking at cross purposes here).

I'm not really sure what your point is at all, so its more than possible we're confused.

The rule zero/Oberoni fallacy is that the statement: "your complaints about [annoying rule] are invalid because you can houserule [annoying rule] to not be annoying" is logically invalid. Such a statement claims to offer a reason as to why [annoying rule] is not in fact annoying, while ALSO agreeing that said rule is annoying and needs to be fixed.

So to go back to the OP, the OP says its a flaw of the system that Barbarians can't interact socially, but that nobody should call this a flaw because DMs can fix it. YMMV on whether this is actually a flaw of the system, but OP is correct to say that DMs can fix it. The problem with his line of thinking is where he condemns people (usually DMs) from calling it a flaw of the system, in the same paragraph he admits its something that has to be fixed. It's bollocks logic. OP has since clarified his position, tbf, but the first post was not well-expressed.

And yes, using houserules to tailor your game to your taste is itself a standard trait of TTRPGs. But when someone starts a thread saying "I'm having a problem with [annoying rule]" its supremely unhelpful to say something like "you can just houserule." Obviously you can, and that's in fact the point of the thread, to talk about houserules.

[OldTrees1]

FWIW, I think that the alleged Oberoni Fallacy tries to reach a bit higher than you describe ... as it's based on a condemnation of a philosophy).

The point is about the role of the rules in the game, particularly in trad games, and the glib dismissal seen on page one of this thread.
(It is quite possible that we are talking at cross purposes here).

It sounds like there is missing context and/or talking at cross purposes.

The opening post was related in a miscommunication that the Opening poster later corrected. Many replies were replies to the miscommunicated message.

The Miscommunicated message was:
Criticism of 5E should Shut Up because "5E was not broken because if the GM changes it, then it is fixed."

The premise "Noun_1 was not State because Noun_2 is not State" is fallacious. The Oberoni Fallacy is a specific instance where:
Noun_1 = some RPG aspect
Noun_2 = the RPG aspect post fix
State = some less than perfect state

So in JNAProduction's post (#2 in this thread) they are warning against the mindset of this specific fallacy.
Noun_1 = 5E
Noun_2 = 5E after the GM changes it to address State
State = "broken" (I use quotes here because the word is rarely meant literally).

If Noun_2 is not State, that does not imply Noun_1 was not State. That is how the Oberoni Fallacy is being used in the cited quote. Yes it is a glib dismissal of the fallacious reasoning inferred in the miscommunication resulting from the opening post.

PS: I do want to stress that the opening poster did clarify in a later post. I am not attributing the fallacy to their position, just to the miscommunication resulting from the opening post as written by the OP and read by some replying posters.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Miscommunicated message was:
Criticism of 5E should Shut Up because "5E was not broken because if the GM changes it, then it is fixed."

The italicized hyperbole is dead on arrival in the first place. Given how many critiques 5e is subjected to, and many with good reason, the only people who need to shut up (in the context of this forum) are the invested D&D-haters, and the D&D 5e-haters, who seek any excuse, or any example, to condemn the game as a whole. Those kinds of posts/posters, and those posts, while quite rare on this forum (even though we each have our own pet peeves with a system this complex) have not been completely absent from discourse on this sub forum (and on other internet sites) since 5e was released.

Put another way, the alleged message was a strawman to begin with.

It sounds like there is missing context and/or talking at cross purposes.

Indeed. And the perfect is the enemy of the good. We do (and I am guilty of this as well) a great deal of carping at the margins in our discussions on this board.

[OldTrees1]

The italicized hyperbole is dead on arrival in the first place.

Put another way, the alleged message was a strawman to begin with.

Indeed. And the perfect is the enemy of the good. We do (and I am guilty of this as well) a great deal of carping at the margins in our discussions on this board.

Indeed. That is a good way to put it "a great deal of carping at the margins".

Yeah, the miscommunication (intended message =/= inferred message) right at the start resulted in the several members of forum suspecting the inferred message was the intended message. This did get corrected a couple pages later.

With that context, we can see statement's like JNAProduction's mention of the Oberoni Fallacy in a new light. The message they inferred and were replying to did use the fallacy. It just wasn't the same message as the Opening Poster intended to communicate.

Cases like this are the exception. In general, as long as you remember the Fallacy Fallacy*, the Oberoni Fallacy is a valid summary of a common RPG specific Non Sequitur Fallacy**.

*
As we all know: If the argument for claim A is fallacious, that does not imply claim A is true nor does it imply claim A is false. It merely implies the argument is invalid and the truth value of claim A remains unknown.

**
Non sequitur:
Claim A. Evidence for A. Therefore Claim C.
Oberoni:
Claim C because Claim A because Evidence for Claim A.

[Cheesegear]

I did a few times already.

The next several posts after this one keep dancing around what they think the Fallacy, is.
None of them provide examples. They each say 'Nuh uh', and continue to not give examples.

Let's gooo...

Magic Missile at low levels is too good. It does equal amount of damage to a Greatsword against a single target, and you can use it on multiple targets to attack with a dagger, each. One to three attacks at Level 1 is pretty good. Also, it doesn't even roll to hit. So whilst a Fighter with a Greatsword might have +5 to hit, they can still miss. Magic Missile, doesn't. Also, Magic Missile deals Force damage, which is really good. So I changed Magic Missile to only shoot two darts at Level 1, not three. Fixed. Now Warlocks aren't so good.

So you think Magic Missile is too good, especially during Tier 1 play? Especially on Warlocks?

No. Because I fixed it.

[Mr. Wonderful]

The fact that there is one, or more, aspects of a game that you believe need improvement does not invalidate the rest of it.

I play a gigantic WW2 boardgame. It has 10 sq ft of maps, a ruleset only a lawyer could love, and takes around a year to play. It's awesome!

But that doesn't mean that I think every aspect is great. So rather than complain about it, either privately or on various forums, my friend and I wrote a set of extensive rules modifications. Now the game we play is much better, and in fact, a significant number of our changes were incorporated into the latest version.

So why didn't we just invent an entirely new game? Because the base rule set was 95% perfect. We just took it the next step.

Binary arguments aren't useful. The presence of a flaw doesn't invalidate the whole system. If you see something you don't like in D&D - or for that matter, any game - then either change it or relax.

And the fact that someone chooses to change it doesn't mean they've fallen into the Pepperoni fallacy or whatever, it just means that, rather than spending their time complaining, they made the game theirs.

[Pex]

The fact that there is one, or more, aspects of a game that you believe need improvement does not invalidate the rest of it.

I play a gigantic WW2 boardgame. It has 10 sq ft of maps, a ruleset only a lawyer could love, and takes around a year to play. It's awesome!

But that doesn't mean that I think every aspect is great. So rather than complain about it, either privately or on various forums, my friend and I wrote a set of extensive rules modifications. Now the game we play is much better, and in fact, a significant number of our changes were incorporated into the latest version.

So why didn't we just invent an entirely new game? Because the base rule set was 95% perfect. We just took it the next step.

Binary arguments aren't useful. The presence of a flaw doesn't invalidate the whole system. If you see something you don't like in D&D - or for that matter, any game - then either change it or relax.

And the fact that someone chooses to change it doesn't mean they've fallen into the Pepperoni fallacy or whatever, it just means that, rather than spending their time complaining, they made the game theirs.

You're misunderstanding. Everyone is welcome to change what they don't like. That's not the fallacy. The fallacy is telling someone who doesn't like something they're wrong to not liking it because it can be changed.

[Cheesegear]

If you see something you don't like in D&D - or for that matter, any game - then either change it or relax.

I can change a rule at my table. That's fine. If every player at my table agrees with my ruling? Fine.
What if they don't agree with my ruling? What then? **** off and leave?
What if DM three tables, and some players are fine with my ruling, but another table isn't?

As has been mentioned several times already in this thread;
The world is full of PUGs,
The world is full of AL,
D&D has grown exponentially in the last decade, with many players playing at multiple different tables with many different players and DMs. One size fits all isn't mandatory, but it is necessary. It's not enough to change things at the player level, because a lot of tables don't have a Session 0, and a lot of players and DMs expect to play the game out of the box. Especially if you're going to also content that D&D has in fact, grown, and that PUGs and AL and your local nerd den is a significant part of the game - which they are.

What people want, is a change at the design level, so that everyone is one the - pun unintended - same page.

That's why a clear and good ruleset matters at the design level.
Not so you can 'change it however you want', it's so that everyone has a common understanding of the game or an individual rule, no matter what table they sit at. From there, you can start changing things. But if fundamentally things are not balanced, you'll also run into the crowd that thinks that if something was designed that way, then it's meant to be that way, and so therefore it's good.

The Champion Fighter sucks. But it's okay. Because it was designed to be bad. So the fact that it's bad, is good!
...What!? What kind of simp bulls* is that!?

When the foundation is flawed, the whole game is flawed.
A lot of players and DMs who have played the game long enough, simply avoid those flaws after having fallen in the hole before.
However, some players actually like the parts of the game, where those flaws, are.

What if I want to play a Champion Fighter, but not suck?
What if I want to play a Barbarian, but not suck?

That's why people suggest fixes. That's why surveys matter. That's why UA is a thing. It's not enough to fix something at your table. It has to be fixed at everyone's table.

[OldTrees1]

The fact that there is one, or more, aspects of a game that you believe need improvement does not invalidate the rest of it.

But that doesn't mean that I think every aspect is great. So rather than complain about it, either privately or on various forums, my friend and I wrote a set of extensive rules modifications. Now the game we play is much better, and in fact, a significant number of our changes were incorporated into the latest version.

Binary arguments aren't useful. The presence of a flaw doesn't invalidate the whole system. If you see something you don't like in D&D - or for that matter, any game - then either change it or relax.

True, but everyone already knows it takes more than 1 moderate flaw to invalidate the game. Why mention it?

Some GMs talk about the game on forums AND also make changes at their own playgroup. Just because you only see the forum thread does not mean the GM is doing nothing. I suspect most groups feel free to adapt the rules to their needs.

I believe it is respectful to assume GMs know they can adapt the game and that they make rational decisions about when and how much extra effort they put into adapting the game for their own playgroup.

I am trying to gently point out that your evidence for "Playgroups should adapt the game to meet their needs" is unrelated to your observation that "People make threads critiquing 5E".

And the fact that someone chooses to change it doesn't mean they've fallen into the Pepperoni fallacy or whatever, it just means that, rather than spending their time complaining, they made the game theirs.

Correct, it doesn't mean they've fallen into the Oberoni Fallacy because the Oberoni Fallacy is something completely different. There is nothing fallacious about making the game theirs. However the Non Sequitur fallacy is a fallacy. The Oberoni Fallacy is the name given to a specific instance of the Non Sequitur fallacy.

Example of the Oberoni Fallacy

• Alice uses the 3E skill system in 5E. (valid)
• If Alice uses the 3E skill system in 5E it addresses Pex's concerns about 5E ability checks. (valid)
• Therefore Pex's criticism of 5E's ability checks is wrong about 5E's ability checks. (invalid)

I presented no evidence to back up the sudden non sequitur conclusion. Therefore my argument was fallacious and invalid.

[Chaos Jackal]

Binary arguments aren't useful. The presence of a flaw doesn't invalidate the whole system. If you see something you don't like in D&D - or for that matter, any game - then either change it or relax.

And the fact that someone chooses to change it doesn't mean they've fallen into the Pepperoni fallacy or whatever, it just means that, rather than spending their time complaining, they made the game theirs.

Where's that guy or gal who said that a flaw invalidates a game? I must have missed their post, and I'd really like to point out to them that they're wrong.

People don't claim that a flaw makes a game invalid. They're pointing out that a flaw makes the game flawed.

And you can bet that most of them change things. They don't just "complain in forums", as you so dismissively put it. They mention and/or discuss these things in forums, see whether others encounter similar problems or if it's simply something they're misunderstanding or just can't get behind, they see if others have come up with solutions they can also use... You know, what a game's community is about and all.

The Oberoni fallacy is also irrelevant to this. The fallacy simply shows that you can't come up with a solution if there wasn't a problem in the first place; if there's no problem, why was a solution needed? You solved it? Good for you. Don't claim there's no problem just because you solved it though.

[ad_hoc]

I can change a rule at my table. That's fine. If every player at my table agrees with my ruling? Fine.
What if they don't agree with my ruling? What then? **** off and leave?
What if DM three tables, and some players are fine with my ruling, but another table isn't?

As has been mentioned several times already in this thread;
The world is full of PUGs,
The world is full of AL,
D&D has grown exponentially in the last decade, with many players playing at multiple different tables with many different players and DMs. One size fits all isn't mandatory, but it is necessary. It's not enough to change things at the player level, because a lot of tables don't have a Session 0, and a lot of players and DMs expect to play the game out of the box. Especially if you're going to also content that D&D has in fact, grown, and that PUGs and AL and your local nerd den is a significant part of the game - which they are.

What people want, is a change at the design level, so that everyone is one the - pun unintended - same page.

That's why a clear and good ruleset matters at the design level.
Not so you can 'change it however you want', it's so that everyone has a common understanding of the game or an individual rule, no matter what table they sit at. From there, you can start changing things. But if fundamentally things are not balanced, you'll also run into the crowd that thinks that if something was designed that way, then it's meant to be that way, and so therefore it's good.

The Champion Fighter sucks. But it's okay. Because it was designed to be bad. So the fact that it's bad, is good!
...What!? What kind of simp bulls* is that!?

When the foundation is flawed, the whole game is flawed.
A lot of players and DMs who have played the game long enough, simply avoid those flaws after having fallen in the hole before.
However, some players actually like the parts of the game, where those flaws, are.

What if I want to play a Champion Fighter, but not suck?
What if I want to play a Barbarian, but not suck?

That's why people suggest fixes. That's why surveys matter. That's why UA is a thing. It's not enough to fix something at your table. It has to be fixed at everyone's table.

This is a problem for a very small part of the player base. AL is, what, 1% of players?

The vast majority of people play in their homes with their friends (okay, maybe as much of that during pandemic lockdowns but the point stands).

Part of the design of the game is how easy it is modify to cater to individual tables' tastes. It's a feature.

Also, you not liking things doesn't mean they're bad. They're just things you don't like. A change that will make the game better for you might make it worse for 99% of other players. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if this forum designed an RPG it would only appeal to a very small crowd. I'm sure it would be good for those people, but most people would probably hate it no matter how perfectly designed its creators thought they made it.