The Emerikol Fallacy .... or .... Fallacious uses of the Oberoni Fallacy

[Kraztur]

In the absence of an objective goal for a rule, mustn't "bad" be subjective?

"Bad" means substandard, inferior, etc. but substandard against what exactly standards? Presumably, a rule is "bad" or not when it doesn't meet certain standards in the gamer's mind -- not objective standards, or at least not objectively expressed.

I'm no expert on logic, but if/when "bad" is subjective, is it really appropriate to appeal to a logical fallacy, or is it actually necessary?

I think everyone has the right to say that a rule is good or bad, since the goals of an RPG rule are clearly not or rarely objective stated. Unless the RPG designer has ever come out and said "This rule absolutely 100% exists for the purpose of so-and-so for every gaming table".

In other words, "This rule is bad" or "This rule is good" is always shorthand for "I think this rule is bad" or "I think this rule is good" (within whatever context of course).

Nobody, no matter what they claim, can logically invalidate your thinking that a rule is bad or not bad if you had different standards in mind. You don't need to appeal to a logical fallacy to shield yourself from their unwarranted accusations if they're projecting their standards onto yours.

They could say something like "So you think that rule is bad. Bad against what standards exactly?" and then argue away.

That's my opinion anyway. I didn't comb thru all my statements for failures of logic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the absence of an objective goal for a rule, mustn't "bad" be subjective?

"Bad" means substandard, inferior, etc. but substandard against what exactly standards? Presumably, a rule is "bad" or not when it doesn't meet certain standards in the gamer's mind -- not objective standards, or at least not objectively expressed.

To be fair, a lot of rules in RPGs do have stated goals, even if the goals are often stated in design blogs or columns or the like, rather than in the rulebook, and a lot of others have goals that, well, seem largely self-evident.

Of course there are murky ones, and indeed those murky ones with no terribly clear purpose and which don't seem obviously sensible do attract a lot of debate. If people agree on the goal of the rule, though, they can at least assess how successful it is, even if they differ on their analysis.

 

[Kraztur]

To be fair, a lot of rules in RPGs do have stated goals, even if the goals are often stated in design blogs or columns or the like, rather than in the rulebook, and a lot of others have goals that, well, seem largely self-evident.

"Self-evident" may or may not be evident. It isn't evident if someone else has read the design blogs. It isn't evident if their interpretation of the designer's statement is the same as yours. I agree that some stated goals may seem more evident, but I'm not sure if they're evident enough to tie back to the problem here.

Of course there are murky ones, and indeed those murky ones with no terribly clear purpose and which don't seem obviously sensible do attract a lot of debate. If people agree on the goal of the rule, though, they can at least assess how successful it is, even if they differ on their analysis.

I agree, but "if people agree on the goal of the rule" is what I've been questioning. It's an assumption that isn't being challenged as much as it could/should be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Self-evident" may or may not be evident. It isn't evident if someone else has read the design blogs. It isn't evident if their interpretation of the designer's statement is the same as yours. I agree that some stated goals may seem more evident, but I'm not sure if they're evident enough to tie back to the problem here.

I agree, but "if people agree on the goal of the rule" is what I've been questioning. It's an assumption that isn't being challenged as much as it could/should be.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I think it's veering away from what Emerikol was trying to discuss. JMHO.

 

[Kraztur]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I think it's veering away from what Emerikol was trying to discuss. JMHO.

Sure, let's see if I can tie it back to the OP.

Emerikol states he likes a rule because so-and-so, or he might state shorthand that the rule is good

Lokireme dislikes the rule, let's say because a DM could arbitrarily adjudicate it against players' interests

Let's presume Lokireme doesn't state this as a preference but in a way that sounds confrontational, thus incentivizing Emerikol to appeal to an authority to help support his original statement (and/or Emerikol just misread Lokireme's statement)

Emerikol, feeling his statement invalidated, counters that "It's a fallacy that any rule that is open to GM interpretation and could possibly be abused by a bad DM is a bad rule. Therefore, your argument that the rule is bad is falacious. If your argument is falacious, my point still stands that it's a good rule"

I guess I'm suggesting that Emerikol's correct strategy is to express that Lokireme's claim that the rule is bad is subjective opinion based on Lokireme's standards for the rule, and therefore does not impinge on Emerikol's assessment of the rule as good. IMO there is no fallacy to be declared.

(I can't imagine under what circumstances would anyone agree exactly on the standards for a rule across multiple gaming tables and multiple scenarios and multiple playstyles, meaning that "bad" or "not bad" is almost always subjective to that variable standard.)

 

[Savage Wombat]

In the absence of an objective goal for a rule, mustn't "bad" be subjective?

For clarity of debate, please provide example(s) of rules lacking an objectively clear goal or intent.

 

[Kraztur]

For clarity of debate, please provide example(s) of rules lacking an objectively clear goal or intent.

I appreciate the need for clarification, but may I leave that up to the OP to give a specific example? Then those concerned can first see if they agree on what the specific rule is being measured as "bad" against what. If they agree on an objectively clear goal or intent for the rule, then they can assess if it's bad or broken. I don't have any personal stake in any side of the issue. I was only interested in the meta-discussion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's also a major problem, in that the designers aren't really allowed to tell you what it is designed to do. Large sections of the Internet would consider it a foul - "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO PLAY!!!1!" would be the battle cry.

Being up front about the type of play the rules are designed for isn't telling anyone how to play. At worst it is kind of a disclaimer 'For best results, use as intended' type of advice. Some may interpret this as being told how to play. Others may see it as a cipher to a hackers guide for the game. If you have clear play objectives for a given rule set then it becomes easier to know what to tinker with to get the game to provide the play objectives YOU want.

 

[Umbran]

For clarity of debate, please provide example(s) of rules lacking an objectively clear goal or intent.

They cannot. There is no such thing. "Clarity," in this context is, speaks to human understanding and interpretation of the text. Human interpretation is thoroughly subjective, not objective. This use of "objective" is like using "literally" for emphasis.

One can be, "bleedingly obvious," but that's not the same thing.

Taking a cue from another discussion - it is not clear what is the intent of having both Acrobatics and Athletics in 5e, given that many actions a player can describe do not cleanly fall into one or the other, and the GM is allowed to switch the stat with which the skill is used. What is the intent of having Acrobatics, when you could roll Dex (Athletics)?

Until the designers actually answer the question of why they chose to have separate skills, we would be making plausible guesses, not plucking The Truth from the aether.

We should not mistake, "This is a result of having the rule this way," for "This is the *intent* of having the rule this way." Not all consequences come about by active intent - thus we have the, "law of unintended consequences."

 

[Umbran]

Being up front about the type of play the rules are designed for isn't telling anyone how to play.

Even if you and I take that as true, you and I do not determine how the bulk of folks will take such a statement. Given how quickly people jump to, "THEY are intentionally trying to eliminate my personal favorite playstyle!" I think my statement stands as well-supported by prior precedent and empirical evidence.