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

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy, and the reason why it is a fallacy, is because it fails to define a "bad rule".

It doesn't really need to, since it's not presented as proof that the rule is bad. Rather, that's going to have to be established some other way.

FREX: say it's 2008 and someone (like Stalker0) just did the math and found out that Skill Challenges actually become /easier/ as they become more complex, the exact opposite of the stated intent. That is unequivocally a bad rule.

Someone pipes up and says: "There's nothing wrong with Skill Challenges, just make the number of failures fixed and change all the difficulties!"

Someone's committing the Oberoni Fallacy, there. Really, it's just a variation on the Strawman, only instead of misrepresenting an argument by substituting a weaker one, you're misrepresenting a rule by substituting a better one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

A DM should adjust to personal taste, not cover up bad ingredients.

If a PC can mow down 40 guys and the DM says, "that shouldn't happen in a gritty campaign!" then the DM is within his rights to adjust it.

If a PC and mow down 40 guys while the group is playing with the "gritty and realistic fantasy Vietnam" combat module, then the rule is bad and the designer should feel bad.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One major benefit of rules lite games though is that they can be utilized effectively by more playstyles. 3e and 4e clashed mightily over playstyle whereas apparently both groups played and enjoyed 1e/2e.

Given that 4e is a lighter game than either 1e or 2e (and especially than 1e - have you ever checked how many rules are buried in the DMG) I think you've just exploded your hypothesis.

It's funny how these conversations go. You ask for rules with a little player agency, it's like "go play FATE or something." Ask for rules that are at all clear, and "XOMG, don't play FATE!"

I don't know why it's supposed to be so impossible to come up with a decent ruleset, or why it's so important to deflect any request for rules quality away from D&D. :shrug:

A decent ruleset for everyone is impossible. Different rules sets have different objectives.

It so happens that I am playing Dresden Files (2 sessions so far). And, it /does/ provide some player agency, but is not the collection of intentionally-unplayable rules that exist only to shock you into running Freestyle RP that some folks make it out to be.

Indeed. There's a lot of people who object to Fate and Fate Points without coming close to understanding them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given that 4e is a lighter game than either 1e or 2e (and especially than 1e - have you ever checked how many rules are buried in the DMG) I think you've just exploded your hypothesis.

It's always weirded me out to see how many people claim 4E is a "rules-heavy" game compared to 1/2/3E. There are many things I can see totally valid dislikes of, or complaints about, re: 4E, but "it's rules-heavy" is absolutely not one of them unless you're also making that complaint about all other editions (it's certainly "rules-heavy" compared to a lot of RPGs - but not, say, more than most mainstream ones).

So yeah, that's a hypothesis that Emerikol is proving invalid with his own example! Even if we just compare 4E and 3E, 3E is VASTLY rules-heavier than 4E, it's not even remotely arguable that it's lighter, yet was less divisive, so that's yet another point against! Gosh!

(EDIT - Even talking about powers/spells for the DM to know, my entire main group's AEDU powers list, for all of them together, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay shorter than the spell list of a mid-level Wizard in 2/3E, let alone with the Cleric/SP and others getting involved!)

 

[Emerikol]

Given that 4e is a lighter game than either 1e or 2e (and especially than 1e - have you ever checked how many rules are buried in the DMG) I think you've just exploded your hypothesis.

Yeah if you believe 4e is rules lite relative to 1e then we should stop talking. I question your sanity and rationality. No point in going on. I guess I consider your position exploded. No offense but on this issue we just are miles apart.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah if you believe 4e is rules lite relative to 1e then we should stop talking. I question your sanity and rationality. No point in going on. I guess I consider your position exploded. No offense but on this issue we just are miles apart.

I'm retrocloning 4e at the moment and my core 4e rules fit on a trifold. It's not the rules lightest system, but isn't at all bad.

1e on the other hand is monstrously rules heavy. Little things like rules for helmets:

AD&D 1e DMG (p28 I think):
"It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to
the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer.
Wearing of a "great helm" adds the appropriate weight and restricts
vision to the front 60" only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not
worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is
intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6,
1-3 = head blow)."
​

With rules like that scattered all over the DMG I question that you can call 1e AD&D (as opposed to bD&D of any shade that grabbed a few houserules from AD&D, as most OSR fans seem to play) rules light in any way, shape, or form. You can question my sanity all you like - I'm not going to respond in kind, but I am going to question your knowledge of either system.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah if you believe 4e is rules lite relative to 1e then we should stop talking. I question your sanity and rationality. No point in going on. I guess I consider your position exploded. No offense but on this issue we just are miles apart.

Yes, you should stop talking. Specifically, you should stop talking *BEFORE* you publicly question someone's sanity or rationality.

Stopping after that is kind of like blowing through the red light, and screeching to a halt after you've already crashed into the other car.

With this as the case in point of how not to discuss things on EN World, I am closing this thread.

Next time, keep it civil.