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

[Savage Wombat]

With that as his example, I surmise that some people are demanding rules that have everything "nailed down" so as to prevent "abusive" interpretations. That to do otherwise is "bad game design".

The real issues are that (1) you can't possibly nail everything down, and (2) doing so requires an ever-growing legalese text. Frankly it surprises me whenever someone seems to demand perfection from their game designers.

Once you've decided that a game's fans seem to want a simpler rule system, it seems apparent to me that using simple words like "friendly" is what's desired, especially since we have the internet resources available to have arguments with the designers about the limits of "friendly". As much as I like clear rules, I admit we managed just fine for years (decades?) without needing everything spelled out for us.

 

[Aenghus]

From the very beginning of D&D I feel there has been a tension between those who crave clear unambigous rules and clarifications, and those willing to accept or even preferring ambiguous rules.

From someone of the former camp, I see the advantages of the latter camp as facilitating situational arguments, so you argue for the ruling that suits you each time, even if it violates precedent. If you are good at debate and playing the DM this can be a very effective tactic, but I find it annoying as all hell.

Enjoying the exploitation of loopholes is a legitimate playstyle, but it's one I can't abide. I want to close loopholes, not exploit them, and my playstyle choice isn't negotiable.

Partially is because I have Asperger's Syndrome, and am bad at reading people. Gambling doesn't interest me, and trying to read the DMs mind is never something I will be good at. I have a real need for rules to be black and white, and ambiguous rules exclude me in a concrete way. All too often DMs refuse to give any idea of the odds for success or failure, which makes choices totally random unless you can read the DM, which I generally can't.

Ambiguous rules aren't all or nothing, quite the contrary. In many cases ambiguous rules arise from clumsy wording that could be easily cleared up with a little tweaking, at least for the majority of readers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

RE: the Charm Person example: Doesn't the spell also say that it gives you advantage in social roles against the target? That's a pretty straightforward mechanic to hang your hat on, as the DM. The player wants to talk his new 'friend' into something, you just call for a CHA check of appropriate difficulty - he has Advantage, so his spell's "doin' somethin'" - and if he hits the DC with the higher roll, yay for him.

Had it been mind control, or fixed difficulties like 3.5's Diplomancer loophole, it'd be different, but this is another case of Advantage being very convenient in the way it makes you more likely to succeed - but still not able to hit a DC that's beyond you, at all.

 

[Kraztur]

How about the 5E Command spell? It provides a list of "typical" commands and their mechanical effects. The spell description also states that players can say a different command word and the DM adjudicates the result. For me, that's Official Permission (if you needed it) to play in the sandbox, and communicates something about designer intent along the lines of "rulings, not rules". For someone else, it might read as a warning: Beware You Are Leaving The Predictable Zone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, if your DM is on the conservative side, you stick with the set of standard commands, if he's a soft touch (or you know how to game him), you see how much you can get away with.

Not fantastic.

3e gave you /just/ a fixed list of commands to choose from (4e of course just gave you the effect, you didn't even need to specify the word used). 1e, I remember, the spell getting weird ("'suicide' could be a noun, so no effect!"). I'm blanking: which way did it go in 2e?

 

[Crothian]

So, if your DM is on the conservative side, you stick with the set of standard commands, if he's a soft touch (or you know how to game him), you see how much you can get away with.

I think if you are just seeing "how much you can get away with" then you might be playing the wrong game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think if you are just seeing "how much you can get away with" then you might be playing the wrong game.

Not if you're playing a game that potentially lets you get away with a whole lot. Then it's exactly the right game.

 

[Kraztur]

Not if you're playing a game that potentially lets you get away with a whole lot. Then it's exactly the right game.

Here's a suggested fix. The DMG includes a sidebar that expressly states that the designers of D&D do not condone players trying to get away with a whole lot just to see how much you can get away with IF it makes other players unhappy. That the purpose of DM adjudicated rules is to bolster the players' ability to tell interesting stories and create a positive net benefit for the entire group's enjoyment. If there are players who keep trying to see how much they can get away with at the expense of others' happiness, the DMG could suggest that either the gaming table has a polite friendly discussion about it, or that the DM adjudicate "No" to the player in question. Bonus: This experience will teach people valuable skills about how to get along with others for any social activity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's a suggested fix.

To fix what? Charm Person? Command?

The DMG includes a sidebar that expressly states that the designers of D&D do not condone players trying to get away with a whole lot just to see how much you can get away with IF it makes other players unhappy.

Well, if they really didn't want to condone it, they shouldn't dangle so many shinny opportunities to see just how much can be gotten away with.

Reminds me of Ivory Tower Game Design. After the fact, when everyone was bitching about how broken 3e was, Cook piped up and said 'we meant to do that, to reward system mastery.' Mearls can say 'we didn't mean to do this, we're cool with you trying to fix it' in the DMG, if he wants. It won't really mean much, since he could never have stopped anyone from /trying/ to fix the game, anyway, but it's a nice sentiment. Y'know, as a sentiment. As a solution it's just the Oberoni Fallacy, again.

Game designers have every right to express nice sentiments. I hope they do put something like that (maybe at tinch less snide than the bits I didn't quote) in the DMG.

But, it won't change the mechanics, nor the quality of the rest of the game, nor how folks choose to (ab)use it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

After the fact, when everyone was bitching about how broken 3e was, Cook piped up and said 'we meant to do that, to reward system mastery.'

<sigh> not this again.

no, mustn't start... it burns...