D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[Mistwell]

There's an additional issue when it comes to RAI. Not that this is always the case, just a potential issue. Whenever RAI arguments come up, they sometimes stray into Oberoni Fallacy territory.

The Oberoni Fallacy is a seriously flawed theory and should burn in a fire.

First, for those not familiar with this theory, it claims that the argument of "The rules are not broken if it can be fixed through DM intervention" is a bad argument, and that "If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed."

The theory is a bad one because at the heart of the theory is the assumption that you can have a set of rules so complete that the game could in theory be run without a DM, be run by a computer for instance that just follows the text of the rules with no need for a human to act as a filter or interpreter for them in any given situation that comes up in the game.

I thought Mike Mearls gave a good example of why it's a stupid theory, when discussing the sneaking rules in 5e:

From the Escapist Magazine interview from August 21, 2014.

Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules."

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."

"There is this funny thing that happens, and stealth is a good example of this. If you want to make a rule that is DM-proof, you end up with a rule that when humans try to read it, it just seems really weird. It’s like the old Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos, “If you want to create an apple pie, you must first create the universe.” I just want to make an apple pie, why are you describing how to make a black hole? Because this is way beyond what I need. So the rules just take on this tone where it doesn't seem like what’s actually happening at the table."

"Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible. You can hide, when people can’t see you. Of course, if someone can see me, then how can I hide? It just seems like common sense. Where, when you’re like, use the grid, and here’s the different gradations of cover, it ends up introducing all this jargon. We can take the simplest concept, like trying to hide, and turn it into something which looks completely alien to someone just reading it."

 

[Emerikol]

I'm in the DM empowerment camp on this issue. I am aware of the trust issue as a major one only through online discussion forums. I'm not doubting it but personally I don't have that issue nor have I seen it as a DM or player. I believe part of it is the ingrained philosophy around where I live that is very strongly in support of DM authority. If the DM isn't benevolent in the way he runs his games then just find another DM. It's not a broken system. It's broken assumptions. If the DM needs to be restrained by the rules then the game is already lost. Just kill it and move on.

That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic with many of you who've had problem DMs. I do though think in many instances it is you and not your DM that had the problem. Learn how your DM rules and operate in that universe. There is no sense in arguing about gravity. If your DM though is unfair or biased in his application of the rules that is another matter and when that happens I say fire that DM. I know that I am always striving to make the game fun for my players. I build the world to be fun. I adjudicate fairly because for us that is what is fun. I fun the NPCs according to THEIR personalities and not according to some DM agenda. I figure out their personalities in advance of the playing sessions as much as humanly possible.

In the case of stealth, you will have DMs that lean one way and others that lean another. Just figure out how they interpret the rules and make your plans based on how they rule. It is pointless to argue. It's just your opinion versus theirs and they are the DM for their campaign. If you want to run a game and do it differently then do so. I encourage it.

 

[Dausuul]

First, for those not familiar with this theory, it claims that the argument of "The rules are not broken if it can be fixed through DM intervention" is a bad argument, and that "If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed."

Correct...

The theory is a bad one because at the heart of the theory is the assumption that you can have a set of rules so complete that the game could in theory be run without a DM, be run by a computer for instance that just follows the text of the rules with no need for a human to act as a filter or interpreter for them in any given situation that comes up in the game.

Not correct at all. There is a world of difference between "broken" and "requires DM input."

A car with a manual transmission requires extra driver input. It is not broken, however. The car correctly does what it is designed to do. The choice to have a manual transmission was made deliberately by the manufacturer, to save money or to appeal to drivers who like having precise control over gear changes. Changing gears is using the car, not fixing it.

A car with a leaky gas tank, on the other hand, is broken. It is not working as intended or designed. There was not a deliberate choice to put a hole in the gas tank and there is no benefit to having it there.

The Oberoni fallacy is when somebody claims you can just refill your gas tank every ten miles, so the hole isn't a problem.

 

[Emerikol]

I do believe the Oberoni Fallacy is a true fallacy. I do think though it often gets misapplied. A game designed intentionally to include DM adjudication that done right results in a good game is not the DM "fixing" the game. The adjudication part is by design. If the CR system though is totally bad, just because the DM can eyeball the monsters and still play does not mean the CR system is okay.

 

[Mistwell]

Correct...


Not correct at all. There is a world of difference between "broken" and "requires DM input."

There's not. If it needs interpretation, then the theory claims it's broken because it needs to be "fixed" by a DM. If the DM didn't need to add something to make it work in a given situation, then it wouldn't be "broken" to begin with, or so goes the theory. I think my critique of it is quite accurate in this respect - the theory requires a set of rules that could be run without a DM or run by a computer simply following the rules with no need for interpretation to address a new situation.

The Oberoni fallacy is when somebody claims you can just refill your gas tank every ten miles, so the hole isn't a problem.

Yeah I have no idea what use you found from this analogy, but it seems completely meaningless to me. We're talking about an issue we both understand, being Dungeons and Dragons. There should be no need for an analogy at all - analogies are for situations where the two people communicating need a common ground because one party is lacking it. If you cannot use an example from the game to demonstrate your claim, then I doubt you can demonstrate your claim. I just gave you the example from Mike Mearls about sneaking, and I think he's right and it nicely demonstrates why the theory is flawed. If you have a response to that, or a counter-example from D&D, that would be great.

 

[prosfilaes]

I'm not doubting it but personally I don't have that issue nor have I seen it as a DM or player.

That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic with many of you who've had problem DMs. I do though think in many instances it is you and not your DM that had the problem.

Twice you say something and then take it away.

If the DM isn't benevolent in the way he runs his games then just find another DM.

You're conflating benevolent with good. There are many benevolent DMs who can't keep their rulings straight from one minute to the next. There are many benevolent DMs who will errata the rules in the middle of the game. There's a lot of bad benevolent DMs.

Not only that, in any form of human endeavor, there needs to be space between perfect and just quit. There needs to be space for players to talk to DMs instead of just quiting whenever something doesn't work for them.

If the DM needs to be restrained by the rules then the game is already lost.

So trying to work with the players to have an established set of rules that everyone understands is the DM being restrained by the rules?

It is pointless to argue. It's just your opinion versus theirs and they are the DM for their campaign. If you want to run a game and do it differently then do so. I encourage it.

You've sat here and told players there's one true way to play; you are actively getting in the way of anyone who wants to have a different style of game, where players can discuss rules and the DM does accept that the rules need to clear up front.

 

[Mistwell]

I do believe the Oberoni Fallacy is a true fallacy. I do think though it often gets misapplied. A game designed intentionally to include DM adjudication that done right results in a good game is not the DM "fixing" the game. The adjudication part is by design. If the CR system though is totally bad, just because the DM can eyeball the monsters and still play does not mean the CR system is okay.

The CR system is specifically meant to not be a solid hard and fast rule, but to function as guidelines for the DM to eyeball and adjust. For example, from the Basuc rules, the CR rules are repeatedly called "guidelines". It uses language such as, "according to the needs of your story and the logic of your adventure setting" and "estimate" and "advice in this section" and "Challenge rating is only a guidepost" and "Simple guide" and "Depending on the circumstances and resources available to the party". It describes the rules in descriptors such as "Probably" and "should", not firm claims like "will" and "must". It tells you that once you have a feel for things, "From there, you can adjust", and gives helpful advice depending on "typical adventuring conditions and average luck" and describes the rules as a "rough estimate".

That seems like the epitome of what you called "intentionally to include DM adjudication". All of the language tells you that's what it is about, and that it is not meant to be a rules as written type of sub-system.

The CR system is definitely not a bad system in 5e, it just admits what we've all known for decades - challenging a particular party in any given set of circumstances requires DM intervention. It requires a DM to know their group, understand how challenges work with that group, and adjust based on that party, and those circumstances. It will be more of an art than a science. No rules will ever fix this robotically, and a computer can never accurately make this judgement call (until Artificial Intelligence is invented) because the parties and circumstances have so much variation that it would be a hopeless task to try and write rules that would address every situation and group that could come up.

The rules are up front about this, and don't pretend the CR system can be used without adjudication. The purpose is to serve as advice and guidelines and rough estimates, and then the DM takes it from there. That's the rules functioning well, not poorly, because of the nature of those types of rules.

 

[Dausuul]

me. We're talking about an issue we both understand, being Dungeons and Dragons. There should be no need for an analogy at all - analogies are for situations where the two people communicating need a common ground because one party is lacking it. If you cannot use an example from the game to demonstrate your claim, then I doubt you can demonstrate your claim. I just gave you the example from Mike Mearls about sneaking, and I think he's right and it nicely demonstrates why the theory is flawed. If you have a response to that, or a counter-example from D&D, that would be great.

Sure.

First of all, remember that the Oberoni fallacy is a fallacy of argument, not anything inherent to the system. It's when someone criticizes a feature of the system, and other people respond not by justifying the feature in question but by saying "You can fix it, so stop moaning."

So, with that in mind, let's take the 5E stealth rules.

Complaint: "The 5E stealth rules are unclear and ambiguous."
Non-Oberoni response: "By leaving the details to the DM, 5E cuts down on rules-lawyering and makes the game run faster and smoother."
Oberoni response: "The DM can just interpret the rules, so it's not a problem."

The non-Oberoni response presents an affirmative reason (possibly correct, possibly not, but a reason) why the feature under discussion should be the way it is. The Oberoni response doesn't. It admits that the system is putting more work on the DM but doesn't give any case for why this should be so.

For another example, take the 3E monk. Lots of folks would tell you that monks in 3E sucked. They were weak in combat. They didn't have much of anything special to do outside combat. They could sneak about as well as a rogue, and they were good at making saving throws, but that was it. They had an impressive-looking list of abilities that were not actually very useful in practice.

Complaint: "3E monks suck compared to the other classes."
Non-Oberoni response: "Monks don't suck because they're better than anybody else at making saving throws, and they have a higher AC than anybody else when not wearing armor, and they can fall without taking damage whenever they want!"
Oberoni response: "The DM can just house-rule them to do more damage, or go out of his/her way to put in encounters that cater to the monk's abilities, so it's not a problem."

The non-Oberoni response is fairly silly IMO, but it's an argument which can be debated on the merits. The Oberoni response is tacitly admitting that monks suck and that DMs have to put in extra work to fix them for no good reason.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure.

First of all, remember that the Oberoni fallacy is a fallacy of argument, not anything inherent to the system. It's when someone criticizes a feature of the system, and other people respond not by justifying the feature in question but by saying "You can fix it, so stop moaning."

So, with that in mind, let's take the 5E stealth rules.

Complaint: "The 5E stealth rules are unclear and ambiguous."
Non-Oberoni response: "By leaving the details to the DM, 5E cuts down on rules-lawyering and makes the game run faster and smoother."
Oberoni response: "The DM can just interpret the rules, so it's not a problem."

The non-Oberoni response presents an affirmative reason (possibly correct, possibly not, but a reason) why the feature under discussion should be the way it is. The Oberoni response doesn't. It admits that the system is putting more work on the DM but doesn't give any case for why this should be so.

Both responses are the same response, phrased in a different way, with one offering expanded explanation. The rule was intentionally left to interpretation. So the response of "The DM can interpret the rule, so it's not a problem" is accurate and not flawed - you described that the rule was left open to interpretation, and that reasonable interpretations are available to deal with the issue that arose, so it ends up not being a problem. You can go into more detail on why the rule was left to interpretation, and that is the first answer. But that's just expanding on the response - the response is not flawed without the expanded answer.

If the rule were phrased in a way that didn't leave interpretation open, then saying "interpret the rule, so it's not a problem" might indeed be flawed (that is your next argument). But if the rule was left to interpretation, then there is no flaw in an argument that says you interpret the rules, so it's not a problem.

Complaint: "3E monks suck compared to the other classes."
Non-Oberoni response: "Monks don't suck because they're better than anybody else at making saving throws, and they have a higher AC than anybody else when not wearing armor, and they can fall without taking damage whenever they want!"
Oberoni response: "The DM can just house-rule them to do more damage, or go out of his/her way to put in encounters that cater to the monk's abilities, so it's not a problem."

But that's not the context we were discussing. You said, "Whenever RAI (Rules as Intended) arguments come up, they sometimes stray into Oberoni Fallacy territory." However, the Monk example has nothing to do with interpreting the intent of the rules or apply common sense to an existing interpretation of the rules. You're not interpreting any rule to increase damage, for instance.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I just want to say that if the rules were written to be vague, then it was a waste of time. People have been homebrewing and interpreting their own rules since D&D began.

Some people prefer solid RAW because it keeps everyone om the same page, and yet allows for DM's to make up their own rules of they want. This way, you cater to everyone. Is there some sort of mind magic that Wizards thinks is happening to people out there to where they can't play outside the written RAW, even though it's been happening since the beginning?