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

[Thomas Shey]

@clearstream, just wanted to note I found your response to me brought up some interesting topics and was thoughtful, but since I took a fall yesterday and my left arm is not up to snuff right now, I don't think I'm up to typing the extended response I'd have preferred.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, to some extent if a mechanically attractive choice works strongly against a roleplaying choice, I'd argue the system has some perverse incentives in it. Its probably not possible to completely avoid those, so some particularly obsessive players can still come up against them, but if a lot of people are hitting them that's probably a system problem.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, that still dodges the question whether Rule 0 should be used to solve every problem. Some people seem to think so, and I'd suggest a lot of people consider that premise faulty from the get-go.

 

[payn]

Well, that still dodges the question whether Rule 0 should be used to solve every problem. Some people seem to think so, and I'd suggest a lot of people consider that premise faulty from the get-go.

Not every issue a person has is designer/company level of change/add severity. I find there is a sliding scale as to the size of the issue. Obviously, that is different from person to person. Basically, I have seen many a poster both invoke rule zero and Oberoni on separate topics. Adding to the issue since many folks dont see rule zero as universal, but an as needed tool.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not every issue a person has is designer/company level of change/add severity. I find there is a sliding scale as to the size of the issue. Obviously, that is different from person to person. Basically, I have seen many a poster both invoke rule zero and Oberoni on separate topics. Adding to the issue since many folks dont see rule zero as universal, but an as needed tool.

Yea there’s separate questions -

Assuming there is an issue what would actually resolve it?

What should WOTC do toward improving the situation?

Most of us talk the former, but most of what we come up with isn’t something that makes sense for Wotc to implement.

Or in a more general sense - how do you determine what design principles to stick with and which to violate in order to lessen certain issues? Or how much do you iterate on what already exists and how much do you start from scratch?

For example, I don’t think Wotc should drastically rewrite the fighter even if it might solve the balance concerns cited. Instead I’d suggest they add elements to improve the issues / lessen them even if they aren’t full solutions.

One place this could be easily done is at level 1 allowing fighters to pick 2 fighting styles and making more out of combat ones. Would also help differentiate early fighters from rangers/paladins more while letting players decide if combat should be their sole focus or if they want some more out of combat. I could even see a fighting style that adds expertise to a skill or 2.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Basically, I have seen many a poster both invoke rule zero and Oberoni on separate topics.

Selectively invoking both Rule Zero and the Oberoni Fallacy is, of course, known as Zamboni's Law.

 

[payn]

Yea there’s separate questions -

Assuming there is an issue what would actually resolve it?

What should WOTC do toward improving the situation?

Most of us talk the former, but most of what we come up with isn’t something that makes sense for Wotc to implement.

Or in a more general sense - how do you determine what design principles to stick with and which to violate in order to lessen certain issues? Or how much do you iterate on what already exists and how much do you start from scratch?

For example, I don’t think Wotc should drastically rewrite the fighter even if it might solve the balance concerns cited. Instead I’d suggest they add elements to improve the issues / lessen them even if they aren’t full solutions.

One place this could be easily done is at level 1 allowing fighters to pick 2 fighting styles and making more out of combat ones. Would also help differentiate early fighters from rangers/paladins more while letting players decide if combat should be their sole focus or if they want some more out of combat. I could even see a fighting style that adds expertise to a skill or 2.

I think you are half way there. The issue is whether these new styles should simply be your homerules or if WOTC needs to implement them to make the game work in general. The former is usually answered with "dont Oberoni me Bro" . You can swap fighter for just about any topic related to the game here too.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Just why are you looking at my butt? Now I'm uncomfortable. It is good, though, isn't it?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think you are half way there. The issue is whether these new styles should simply be your homerules or if WOTC needs to implement them to make the game work in general. The former is usually answered with "dont Oberoni me Bro" . You can swap fighter for just about any topic related to the game here too.

Some should! But I don’t think what you are getting at is quite accurate. There’s some nuance in whether Wotc should change something or whether the change should be a houserule. It’s not a 1 size fits all issues type question.

there’s a range - and as I previously mentioned there’s a difference in what would fix an issue for some and what Wotc should actually implement.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Not everyone has the time and energy to type up thousand word Essays whenever they have an opinion. And even if they did, would you read it??