Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9173457" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Good point. I end up not saying the problems cease to be problems, only that they're resolvable. Indeed, they may be intentionally left out of the scope of the extant rules. As would be the case in many OSR games (for instance, they often eschew rules covering skills.) As you pointed out, to say Rule 0 makes any problem not a problem <em>"seems to define the concept of "problem" out of existence unless its unfixable.</em>"</p><p></p><p>Still, there are differences in the classes of problems found in rules.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One can find <strong>lacunae </strong>(where the rules do not extend) as I noted above. The existence of a rule 0 in a game text is I believe expected to mean that lacunae are "not problems".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One can find <strong>ambiguities </strong>- text that literally admits of two or more meanings - which one could argue is a problem even in a refereed game, because the ref has to figure out which meaning is right. Or one could say that the whole point of having a ref is so that ambiguities will not be problems because someone has the job of choosing a meaning to run with.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One can find <strong>contradictions </strong>- rules that conflict so that if one stands the other cannot - and <strong>paradoxes </strong>- rules that make things happen that ought not to happen.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There are <strong>balance </strong>problems where some choices overshadow other choices: they're overly effective or effective where they should not be, or in the worst cases warp play around them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And <strong>implementation </strong>problems, where some rules are just hard to apply at the table.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There can be problems with <strong>clarity as to when a rule should be invoked</strong> (these can be quite separate from problems with what the rule does when it is invoked).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And of course there can be problems with <strong>precedence </strong>(which could be seen as a sub-class of contradictions.)</li> </ul><p>Following then the discussion from StackExchange</p><p></p><p></p><p>Emphasis mine. Interestingly, that discussion doesn't touch on <em>lacunae</em>, the repair of which I earlier described as an often cited motive for Rule 0's existence. So where my line of argument winds up is that had Bob said "It is a problem that X happens in our game and the rules don't cover it" then it would be a non-Oberoni-able response to say "I disagree, the rules cover it by supplying Rule 0".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Whether one wants to argue for broader powers for Rule 0, is another matter. In a sense, the Oberoni fallacy raises the question of whether Rule 0 power is expected to amount to the game text being only contingent - suggestions or hand waves toward how things go should the wielder of Rule 0 decide to follow them. In that case, no final game text can be said to exist prior to play at the table, and thus it cannot be found fault with.</p><p></p><p>Reversion to Oberoni in such cases may amount to a failure to notice that people are working from different paradigms. In some paradigms, it is indeed accurate to say that fault is in the eye of the beholder!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just for clarity, I have observed some folk following the notion I outlined just above. It goes far beyond Rule 0 being an all-purpose power tool. It is nearer saying that reality itself (the reality of what the rules text says) is only determined when the tool is engaged. I suspect that at least some Oberoni-related disputes founder upon one party not seeing that, that is what the other party means.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9173457, member: 71699"] Good point. I end up not saying the problems cease to be problems, only that they're resolvable. Indeed, they may be intentionally left out of the scope of the extant rules. As would be the case in many OSR games (for instance, they often eschew rules covering skills.) As you pointed out, to say Rule 0 makes any problem not a problem [I]"seems to define the concept of "problem" out of existence unless its unfixable.[/I]" Still, there are differences in the classes of problems found in rules. [LIST] [*]One can find [B]lacunae [/B](where the rules do not extend) as I noted above. The existence of a rule 0 in a game text is I believe expected to mean that lacunae are "not problems". [*]One can find [B]ambiguities [/B]- text that literally admits of two or more meanings - which one could argue is a problem even in a refereed game, because the ref has to figure out which meaning is right. Or one could say that the whole point of having a ref is so that ambiguities will not be problems because someone has the job of choosing a meaning to run with. [*]One can find [B]contradictions [/B]- rules that conflict so that if one stands the other cannot - and [B]paradoxes [/B]- rules that make things happen that ought not to happen. [*]There are [B]balance [/B]problems where some choices overshadow other choices: they're overly effective or effective where they should not be, or in the worst cases warp play around them. [*]And [B]implementation [/B]problems, where some rules are just hard to apply at the table. [*]There can be problems with [B]clarity as to when a rule should be invoked[/B] (these can be quite separate from problems with what the rule does when it is invoked). [*]And of course there can be problems with [B]precedence [/B](which could be seen as a sub-class of contradictions.) [/LIST] Following then the discussion from StackExchange Emphasis mine. Interestingly, that discussion doesn't touch on [I]lacunae[/I], the repair of which I earlier described as an often cited motive for Rule 0's existence. So where my line of argument winds up is that had Bob said "It is a problem that X happens in our game and the rules don't cover it" then it would be a non-Oberoni-able response to say "I disagree, the rules cover it by supplying Rule 0". Whether one wants to argue for broader powers for Rule 0, is another matter. In a sense, the Oberoni fallacy raises the question of whether Rule 0 power is expected to amount to the game text being only contingent - suggestions or hand waves toward how things go should the wielder of Rule 0 decide to follow them. In that case, no final game text can be said to exist prior to play at the table, and thus it cannot be found fault with. Reversion to Oberoni in such cases may amount to a failure to notice that people are working from different paradigms. In some paradigms, it is indeed accurate to say that fault is in the eye of the beholder! Just for clarity, I have observed some folk following the notion I outlined just above. It goes far beyond Rule 0 being an all-purpose power tool. It is nearer saying that reality itself (the reality of what the rules text says) is only determined when the tool is engaged. I suspect that at least some Oberoni-related disputes founder upon one party not seeing that, that is what the other party means. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!
Top