Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!

[clearstream]

Yeah. The usual issue is with people who will, essentially, try to use Rule Zero and its kin to dismiss any problem they don't share (or, sometimes, the concept that a problem can legitimately exist for people with a given game system without the problem being the person).

The reason this one tends to get as much pushback is, to be blunt, not everyone with a problem with a rule can fix it, even if they want to; not everyone is a GM, or doesn't play in an organized play setting where they're stuck with whatever the "official" rule is.

I can imagine a set of problems connected with cases beyond where the rules extend, to which - "Rule 0 is the fix for these problems" - ought to be a reasonable response... seeing as that is one of the most often cited motives for Rule 0's existence in the first place.

What I think the Oberoni deals with is relying on Rule 0 to solve problems it wasn't invented for. (Here I speak not of the literal 3e D&D Rule 0 text, but fairly widely held notions about the purpose of a rule-creating power in the game. Whether or not one agrees with them.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. I think it's important to recognize how it is a problem for that person. We shouldn't assume they are lying lol. Outright dismissals of "that's not a problem at all." aren't all that helpful.

I generally think that there are two types of, "I have a problem" posts.

1. People that have a problem, and are asking everyone else for solutions to the problem.

2. People that have a problem, and they want to vent about the problem, and they want everyone else to say, "Yes, you are correct! That is a problem!"

It's best not to mistake the two types of posts.

Honestly, this is true in real life too. And no, your butt does not look big in those jeans.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm going to point out something very important:

I do not argue to convince the person I am directly responding to, I argue to convince whoever the voluntary audience of the argument happens to consist of-- that can include the person who my arguments are framed as a response to, but I never assume that it does, because I can't assume that they are putting their viewpoint on the table in the first place; instead I take for granted that there are other people reading my points of view who are essentially referring back to the debate as an exploration of whatever was being discussed-- something I do myself very frequently. I do this at least partially because I've had way too many experiences where someone engaged with me and tried to use themselves as a kind of hostage, using their own willingness to listen as a form of leverage, and using that to reshape the etiquette of the conversation around having to please them in some way or be "unconvincing" even if their arguments lacked quality relative to my own.

One side effect of this practice, is that its most important for me to explore the cause and effect at work in the discussion to show my work and why I found something said to be without merit, often that means litigating exactly what about their argument doesn't follow; frequently enough people don't notice why something was convincing on an intellectual level and how it doesn't align with their values or follow or whatever without it being pointed out. Incidentally, this is also why I sometimes say something that sounds like it's sharply disagreeing with another sentiment in the thread, but don't actually respond to any particular post, because the getting at the idea itself is more important (and I've learned that keeps me out of some fights I don't need to be in)-- so instead it just kind of speaks for itself alongside the other views expressed.

Within this context, specific informal fallacies allow you to easily shorthand specific arguments that are problematic and recur into a concept that can itself be discussed, calling the false dichotomy of "a person who is optimizing must not be roleplaying" or "the worse you are optimizing the better you are roleplaying" the "Stormwind Fallacy" is a nice way to identify it as a recurring problem, and then talk about the problem in the abstract, as well as teach the error-- I discuss the Stormwind Fallacy with players I introduce to the hobby (casually, generally well after they start playing) to make sure they don't actually pick up the habit of committing it from someone.

I'm actually little envious that you're convinced people don't really believe in the Dichotomy the Stormwind Fallacy was intended to address, I've been called "Exactly the Kind of Person Who Is Ruining This Hobby" because of it over on reddit, and I've seen people make really disparaging comments in exactly that vein over in World of Darkness oriented Discords when people discuss basic character optimization. I've also had players at my table (though not for long, for unrelated reasons) tell me in extremely smug tones when they heard about another player's build that "I don't do that, I actually LIKE roleplaying" so I experience it pretty regularly in some circles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can imagine a set of problems connected with cases beyond where the rules extend, to which - "Rule 0 is the fix for these problems" - ought to be a reasonable response... seeing as that is one of the most often cited motives for Rule 0's existence in the first place.

Notice, however, your very phrasing acknowledges they're problems.

To draw a parallel, there are known cases where video game progams, especially older ones, sometimes play badly with a given modern video chip or version of Windows. Sometimes there are well-known fixes for these. These can vary from the trivial to the really convoluted.

What they don't do, is, essentially, to claim the problems aren't problems. They're still indications the program is not working as one could reasonably expect it to. And the degree of work needed to fix them can vary considerably.

That's the issue with waving Rule Zero around. It essentially tries to elide the question of whether the design choice was originally good, and may overstate how easy is to patch.

What I think the Oberoni deals with is relying on Rule 0 to solve problems it wasn't invented for. (Here I speak not of the literal 3e D&D Rule 0 text, but fairly widely held notions about the purpose of a rule-creating power in the game. Whether or not one agrees with them.)

Well, the fact some people act like its the all-purpose power tool certainly doesn't help.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm actually little envious that you're convinced people don't really believe in the Dichotomy the Stormwind Fallacy was intended to address, I've been called "Exactly the Kind of Person Who Is Ruining This Hobby" because of it over on reddit, and I've seen people make really disparaging comments in exactly that vein over in World of Darkness oriented Discords when people discuss basic character optimization. I've also had players at my table (though not for long, for unrelated reasons) tell me in extremely smug tones when they heard about another player's build that "I don't do that, I actually LIKE roleplaying" so I experience it pretty regularly in some circles.

Yeah, it may not be quite as common as it once was, but it still is absolutely a thing you can hit in the wild. Its not unrelated to my occasional rather dry "Why yes, I actually can be interested in the game elements of an RPG and the roleplaying elements at the same time."

 

[clearstream]

Notice, however, your very phrasing acknowledges they're problems.

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 "seems to define the concept of "problem" out of existence unless its unfixable."

Still, there are differences in the classes of problems found in rules.

• One can find lacunae (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 ambiguities - 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 contradictions - rules that conflict so that if one stands the other cannot - and paradoxes - rules that make things happen that ought not to happen.
• There are balance 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 implementation problems, where some rules are just hard to apply at the table.
• There can be problems with clarity as to when a rule should be invoked (these can be quite separate from problems with what the rule does when it is invoked).
• And of course there can be problems with precedence (which could be seen as a sub-class of contradictions.)

Following then the discussion from StackExchange

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

• "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
• "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
• "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

• "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

Emphasis mine. Interestingly, that discussion doesn't touch on lacunae, 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".

To draw a parallel, there are known cases where video game progams, especially older ones, sometimes play badly with a given modern video chip or version of Windows. Sometimes there are well-known fixes for these. These can vary from the trivial to the really convoluted.

What they don't do, is, essentially, to claim the problems aren't problems. They're still indications the program is not working as one could reasonably expect it to. And the degree of work needed to fix them can vary considerably.

That's the issue with waving Rule Zero around. It essentially tries to elide the question of whether the design choice was originally good, and may overstate how easy is to patch.

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!

Well, the fact some people act like its the all-purpose power tool certainly doesn't help.

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.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, it may not be quite as common as it once was, but it still is absolutely a thing you can hit in the wild. Its not unrelated to my occasional rather dry "Why yes, I actually can be interested in the game elements of an RPG and the roleplaying elements at the same time."

Where I believe Stormwind can lead to folk talking at cross-purposes is in the adjacent neighbourhood of vexation with a player's mechanical choices, that they have made based on RP motivations. Some take Stormwind to imply that optimisation is never at odds with roleplayability. Which just isn't true. Witness remarks made by the authors of Pun-Pun for one example. But generally, in the space of all possible character builds, it's entirely feasible that for a given player some optimised builds will not be roleplayable.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Where I believe Stormwind can lead to folk talking at cross-purposes is in the adjacent neighbourhood of vexation with a player's mechanical choices, that they have made based on RP motivations. Some take Stormwind to imply that optimisation is never at odds with roleplayability. Which just isn't true. Witness remarks made by the authors of Pun-Pun for one example. But generally, in the space of all possible character builds, it's entirely feasible that for a given player some optimised builds will not be roleplayable.

I'd actually push back, in the sense that its not so much a conflict between the two as to whether the individual actually cares about both. Most builds in most games can be roleplayed, especially since the degree to which those mechanical elements define the character, and what they mean are often in the purview of the player. Even Pun-Pun could be roleplayed as some kind of litRPG godling type if the player wants to. The causative part is important, it can't just be an incidental correlation that your optimization players enjoy other parts of the gane less, or don't have the skillset. Its frequently treated as if "solving" the optimization "solves" the roleplaying, and that part never really seens to be true in any player ive worked with.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Within this context, specific informal fallacies allow you to easily shorthand specific arguments that are problematic and recur into a concept that can itself be discussed, calling the false dichotomy of "a person who is optimizing must not be roleplaying" or "the worse you are optimizing the better you are roleplaying" the "Stormwind Fallacy" is a nice way to identify it as a recurring problem, and then talk about the problem in the abstract, as well as teach the error-- I discuss the Stormwind Fallacy with players I introduce to the hobby (casually, generally well after they start playing) to make sure they don't actually pick up the habit of committing it from someone.

Fundamentally, the issue is that everyone has access to the shorthands, wants to use them, and generally don't use them only when valid*. Shorthands, are, for want of a better word, templates. We apply them with the assumption that they will be applicable in a given situation because they are in broad terms, and that's not always the case. Especially in these long, winding forum discussions where someone might be making an argument with some underlying assumptions (particularly with regards to scope or the like) based on what was said between them and a third participant two pages back. If I'm a member of that voluntary audience of the argument, I generally want to see you** show your work so I can judge for myself whether I think it is applicable in this instance. To keep out of the Stormwind discussion for a while, I'll use Oberoni as an example. I can't think of an instance where someone calling out an Oberoni fallacy wouldn't be better served (in their interest in convincing said voluntary audience) with something along the lines of, "I don't think rule 0 is really helpful here/solves the problem, ...[and then a spelled-out argument]."
*I mean, both strawman and ad homonym arguments are prevalent; yet when I see someone on the internet whip them out, my knee jerk reaction is that they are doing so in replacement of a convincing counter argument.
**the proverbial you. Whomever is trying to make a case.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Thinking about it, some of it may actually be that we're trying to actually get past some of these things-- codifying the Oberoni fallacy telegraphs that deploying the thing it labels is a bad thing and that it's badness is settled because otherwise we wouldn't be raising it as a flag instead of debating it's merits. Either way you sort of end up having to relitigate the fallacy unless the person you're arguing with accepts the weight of previous debate implied by it's codification, that does happen sometimes (its how we ended up with terms like 'dogwhistle' and 'whataboutism' and basically made performing them a non-starter for a lot of people) but sometimes people's first instinct is to simply reject everything and force you to go through it with them again from first principles to try and help them reinvent how we got here in the hopes that the difficulty of that will make you go away (or because they don't get it, I'm admittedly cynical.) As rhetorical device, the codification of an informal fallacy in this sense, can be thought of as marketing the performance of the act as unacceptable, as well as raising awareness via shorthand terminology that sticks in the brain well of what the thing we're not to do is.