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

[Ruin Explorer]

He only has to be consistent with his own rulings. The players will quickly learn how his world world.

Ah, I disagree, but hope to discuss it later. In short a competent DM gets player buy-in, not just player acceptance/understanding, imo.

The fallacy is stating that a rule is incomplete because it does not spell out exactly what can happen but leaves it open to DM adjudication.

But as you've accepted that this is an honest question of degree, your fallacy will rarely, if ever, be valid. More later maybe!

 

[Umbran]

You can't build a game based on how it might be abused. At best, you build a game to function as designed, and design the game so that it is easy to interpret, understand, and use as designed.

There is this wonderful place called the "middle ground" we don't like to talk about. The internet is this place a whole lot of "all or nothing" that doesn't need to be so extreme.

I'm sorry, Olgar, but at best, you build a game to function as designed, and design the game so that is it easy to interpret, understand, and use as designed... with some attention paid to obvious abuses.

Can you make a system foolproof? Of course, not. And being damnfoolproof is certainly out of the question. But that doesn't mean that abuse cannot, and should not, be considered as you go along. If you must, you can consider this a sub-heading under "easy to use as designed" - because shooting yourself in the foot does not make for an "easy" play experience.

There's also a major problem, in that the designers aren't really allowed to tell you what it is designed to do. Large sections of the Internet would consider it a foul - "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO PLAY!!!1!" would be the battle cry.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm sorry, Olgar, but at best, you build a game to function as designed, and design the game so that is it easy to interpret, understand, and use as designed... with some attention paid to obvious abuses.

Can you make a system foolproof? Of course, not. And being damnfoolproof is certainly out of the question. But that doesn't mean that abuse cannot, and should not, be considered as you go along. If you must, you can consider this a sub-heading under "easy to use as designed" - because shooting yourself in the foot does not make for an "easy" play experience.

We agree, and are saying the same thing.

 

[TwoSix]

There's also a major problem, in that the designers aren't really allowed to tell you what it is designed to do. Large sections of the Internet would consider it a foul - "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO PLAY!!!1!" would be the battle cry.

I would hope in 2014 that we're past that kind of nonsense. I mean, FATE Core, which is one of my favorite RPG rulebooks, has pretty explicit sidebars along the lines of "We've found the best way to run this situation is to do X. You can do Y, but you'll probably run into these problems, and honestly, it's less fun." 13th Age has extremely similar sidebars. I'm hoping to see some good designer voice sidebars in the 5e DMG, at least. I think it would be a missed opportunity if they didn't.

 

[Emerikol]

Ah, I disagree, but hope to discuss it later. In short a competent DM gets player buy-in, not just player acceptance/understanding, imo.

Yeah it would be a fun discussion if we kept it friendly. I'm more of the school of thought that a DM needs to be highly motivated and really involved and it's best if possible for him to seek players that fit his game rather than adjusting. Obviously if your playerbase is limited or intransigent that might be hard. For me it never has been. I can only surmise that what I like is at least liked enough by a lot of people.

But as you've accepted that this is an honest question of degree, your fallacy will rarely, if ever, be valid. More later maybe!

If the rule is clear in a language sense, and there exists somewhere in the book advice on adjudication then it qualifies. It's not a bad rule. It may still be a rule that you don't like. I don't like martial healing but it's not a bad rule in the sense I'm using here. It's a bad rule for my enjoyment of the game but it's not a broken rule. Perhaps the term broken is a better term. We subjectively say all sorts of things are bad when we mean bad for us.

 

[Umbran]

We agree, and are saying the same thing.

You may mean the same thing, but it doesn't seem present in what you said. What you said looks like a rather polar, "don't worry about abuse at all". What I'm saying is "a moderate amount of attention should be paid to abuse". I'd like to hear what in your text indicates that.

 

[Agamon]

Any rule that is open to GM interpretation and could possibly be abused by a bad DM is a bad rule.

Let me call this the Emerikol Fallacy.

One of the advantages of roll playing games is that you have a human who can make judgments that are beyond today's computers abilities to make. This ability to judge allows players greater flexibility. They can literally try anything. The GM is expected to fairly set the difficulty and allow for a roll. The number he chooses can vary from GM to GM but that is not a bad thing. Each GM is tasked with representing his own campaign world. As long as he is consistent in application across all players and npcs, it's fine.

Exactly. Rule zero should not be there to fix "PC's never heal damage" or "Slap your player if he rolls a one." Bad rules are bad rules. There may be some disagreement as to what a bad rule is (thus my extreme examples), but often a majority may agree on what doesn't work. Now, if a game does have a bad rule, rule zero lets you fix it. But just because I have a well stocked tool box in the garage doesn't mean it's okay to sell me a lemon car.

But how this got mixed up with GM's adjudicating rules is beyond me. Interpretable rules are not bad rules. One may have a preference for having the rules be as blunt and fixed and spelled out as possible, but that doesn't make interpretable rules bad. It's simply a different style of game.

 

[DMZ2112]

Exactly. Rule zero should not be there to fix "PC's never heal damage" or "Slap your player if he rolls a one."

Yeah, that's a terrible implementation of Rule Zero. Waiting until they roll a one is just going to make them think they run the place.

 

[Emerikol]

Exactly. Rule zero should not be there to fix "PC's never heal damage" or "Slap your player if he rolls a one." Bad rules are bad rules. There may be some disagreement as to what a bad rule is (thus my extreme examples), but often a majority may agree on what doesn't work. Now, if a game does have a bad rule, rule zero lets you fix it. But just because I have a well stocked tool box in the garage doesn't mean it's okay to sell me a lemon car.

But how this got mixed up with GM's adjudicating rules is beyond me. Interpretable rules are not bad rules. One may have a preference for having the rules be as blunt and fixed and spelled out as possible, but that doesn't make interpretable rules bad. It's simply a different style of game.

And that is my entire point. If the REASON you give for saying a rule is bad is that a bad DM could abuse it then you are committing the Emerikol Fallacy. If you dislike a rule because of other reasons then you are not committing the fallacy.

The fallacy is believing a game can ever contain bad DMs. Bad as in evil not bad as in inexperienced.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And that is my entire point. If the REASON you give for saying a rule is bad is that a bad DM could abuse it then you are committing the Emerikol Fallacy. If you dislike a rule because of other reasons then you are not committing the fallacy.

The fallacy is believing a game can ever contain bad DMs. Bad as in evil not bad as in inexperienced.

So to rephrase it, the Emerikol Fallacy would be:

"If a rule is ONLY "bad" because a nasty/unpleasant/malicious/evil DM (as opposed to a merely incompetent/newbie/etc. DM) can abuse it, it is not actually bad".

Yes/no?