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

[Neonchameleon]

Text from my blog....

The basic gist of the Oberoni Fallacy is...

The fact a GM using rule zero can fix a rules problem does not mean there is no rules problem.

I agree with Oberoni that such thinking is a fallacy. But that fallacy has been taken too far in some discussions. We are no longer talking about rules problems. We are talking about rules that allow more or less GM adjudication.

The fallacy has been stretched to mean the following...

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.

Unless you can provide citations that looks like an example of the Strawman Fallacy to me.

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.

Comments and discussion?

Who are you to throw out Gygaxian D&D from RPGs? The rules of old school D&D were explicitly not consistent in application across players and NPCs to the point that NPCs could see in the dark but I believe lost that ability when they joined the party of PCs. And PCs needed to use strength to open doors the weediest goblins and kobolds could run through.

The idea you need to be consistent across PCs and NPCs is exclusive to the 3.X family of D&D and shared by no other member of the D&D family that I am aware of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

That is, indeed, very different from Oberoni. Oberoni references a 'bad rule,' this one seeks to define a bad rule.

Now, /all/ rules are subject to being changed or over-ridden by the DM, and thus can be abused by a bad DM. So, "and could possibly be abused by a bad DM" is redundant. All rules can be abused by a bad DM - good rules, at best, make it hard for the DM to hide that abuse from his players.

That's the crux of the fallacy.

And, really, coming up with a quasi-reverse Oberoni fallacy doesn't invalidate Oberoni. It still stands. The mere fact that a good enough DM can make up for a bad rule doesn't excuse the bad rule.


Now, the real question is whether a rule that /requires/ DM arbitration to function at all is a good rule. I'd have to assert that it isn't a good /rule/, per se, but that it can be a good thing to have in the game as a sort of caution sign or 'here there be dragons' notation to let the DM know that he's leaving the defined scope of the game and is more or less on his own.

RPGs tend to be open-ended, especially when run in a 'sandbox' style, so having vague guidelines and broad, requires-interpretation/DM-judgement rules at the edges and corners of the system makes sense. It gives the DM something to start with when he decides (or his players push him) to go outside the scope of the game.

And, yes, when a DM does that, you'd better hope he's a cut above, because it's just not as easy as running a good system /within/ it's usual scope.

 

[Umbran]

That is, indeed, very different from Oberoni. Oberoni references a 'bad rule,' this one seeks to define a bad rule.

No, it doesn't.

It seeks to elucidate when an argument that claims a rule to be bad is fallacious. As in, "Just 'cause a GM can abuse it, doesn't make it bad." This does not define what a bad rule is, but what a bad *argument* is. The rule itself could still be good or bad - we need different logic to assess it.

Oh, and [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION], I bet you you'd have had an easier time of this if you didn't take the apparently egotistical step of naming it after yourself. On a board where we have to constantly tell folks to address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster, your choice made that extremely difficult.

Now, the real question is whether a rule that /requires/ DM arbitration to function at all is a good rule. I'd have to assert that it isn't a good /rule/, per se, but that it can be a good thing to have in the game as a sort of caution sign or 'here there be dragons' notation to let the DM know that he's leaving the defined scope of the game and is more or less on his own.

Oh, goodness. If that's a real question for you, then don't ever play FATE-based games. In FATE, some highly important chunks of the mechanics require the application of natural language descriptive phrases to in-game situations. Since we are talking about natural language, and not game-jargon, GM arbitration is required in the game pretty constantly. This is not "edges and corners" - this is central to the game's operation. If this is instantly an issue of "here there be dragons", FATE games should, as a matter of course, go up in dragonflame, as the game has you stomping around on the horde.

Oddly, they don't go up in flames. Oddly, this game with loads of GM arbitration in its rules has, by reports, sold pretty darned well for something not published by WotC or Paizo.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Now, the real question is whether a rule that /requires/ DM arbitration to function at all is a good rule.

The fact that the question of whether a rule requires DM arbitration is itself subjective, suggests to me that this whole issue falls into the "gray area" territory.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now, the real question is whether a rule that /requires/ DM arbitration to function at all is a good rule. I'd have to assert that it isn't a good /rule/, per se, but that it can be a good thing to have in the game as a sort of caution sign or 'here there be dragons' notation to let the DM know that he's leaving the defined scope of the game and is more or less on his own.

When dealing with a roleplaying game based on spontaneous creativity and imagination I disagree. There is a particular quote from The Outlaw Josey Wales that is particularly relevant:


[/QUOTE]Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double-tongues. There is iron in your word of death for all Comanche to see. And so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron, it must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life. [/QUOTE]

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Oh, goodness. If that's a real question for you, then don't ever play FATE-based games. In FATE, some highly important chunks of the mechanics require the application of natural language descriptive phrases to in-game situations. Since we are talking about natural language, and not game-jargon, GM arbitration is required in the game pretty constantly. This is not "edges and corners - this is central to the game's operation. If this is instantly an issue of "here there be dragons", FATE games should, as a matter of course, go up in dragonflame, as the game has you stomping around on the horde.

Oddly, they don't go up in flames. Oddly, this game with loads of GM arbitration in its rules has, by reports, sells pretty darned well for something not published by WotC or Paizo.

It is a real question for me. Which explains why my basic read through of FATE didn't leave me enthusiastic. It's likely also my same problem with Marvel Heroic RPG.

As I said in my post on the first place, extremely vague rules tend to drive me completely bonkers. It's like trying to play Chess when the rules say "Pawn can move in whatever directions pawns move in. Ask your DM which direction he feels they should move in."

I think it's because I feel a game should have tactical choices of some sort to actually qualify as a game. One where you weigh the positives and negatives of each choice and try to come up with the "best" option. That's how you win.

When the rules REQUIRE GM arbitration in order to function all the time then it is impossible to make these sorts of tactical decisions because you have no basis for them.

Most of the games that require these sorts of arbitration tend to hide behind "well, everyone knows how dangerous a gun is, so we don't need a rule to tell us how dangerous it is. Everyone can base their decisions off of their real life experiences." However, my experience in attempting to play in these sorts of games is that everyone's perception of reality and their real life experiences are COMPLETELY different from one another.

 

[Emerikol]

No, it doesn't.

It seeks to elucidate when an argument that claims a rule to be bad is fallacious. As in, "Just 'cause a GM can abuse it, doesn't make it bad." This does not define what a bad rule is, but what a bad *argument* is. The rule itself could still be good or bad - we need different logic to assess it.

Oh, and @Emerikol, I bet you you'd have had an easier time of this if you didn't take the apparently egotistical step of naming it after yourself. On a board where we have to constantly tell folks to address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster, your choice made that extremely difficult.

Anything called a Fallacy is an attempt to identify bad logic. Thanks for your help. I was merely mimicking Oberoni.

It's also a fallacy [MENTION=16326]Ruin[/MENTION]Explorer to add anything to my statement. If I say A does not make B true, I of course am not saying that A & C couldn't make B true. It's kind of silly to emphasize that. I said a rule judged bad by the fact it can be abused by an evil DM is a fallacy.
[MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas
I was not claiming that Emerikol's Fallacy was the opposite of the Oberoni Fallacy. I said that some people made the mistake of taking the Oberoni Fallacy too far.

Oh, goodness. If that's a real question for you, then don't ever play FATE-based games. In FATE, some highly important chunks of the mechanics require the application of natural language descriptive phrases to in-game situations. Since we are talking about natural language, and not game-jargon, GM arbitration is required in the game pretty constantly. This is not "edges and corners" - this is central to the game's operation. If this is instantly an issue of "here there be dragons", FATE games should, as a matter of course, go up in dragonflame, as the game has you stomping around on the horde.

Oddly, they don't go up in flames. Oddly, this game with loads of GM arbitration in its rules has, by reports, sold pretty darned well for something not published by WotC or Paizo.

Good points. There are objectively good characteristics of rules and there are subjective characteristics that are good for some and not good for others. A desire for more or less DM adjudication is purely in the subjective category. A desire for fewer rules more broadly used is a subjectively good or bad approach. The benefits of rules lite appear to weigh heavy against the benefits of rules heavy. It depends on your preferences. 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.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's because I feel a game should have tactical choices of some sort to actually qualify as a game. One where you weigh the positives and negatives of each choice and try to come up with the "best" option. That's how you win.

Except that, overall, D&D lacks a well-defined win condition. If you came on the boards tomorrow, and said, "I won D&D!", you'd get chuckled at. So, you're already in a shaky place, with that one.

Not to say you cannot personally prefer particular kinds of rules. You're welcome to like what you like. But, given the RPG departure from the standard for games you present, definition of "good" or "bad" rules becomes very difficult. It is easy to define a good rule *for you*. Defining it for the thousands of others?

When the rules REQUIRE GM arbitration in order to function all the time then it is impossible to make these sorts of tactical decisions because you have no basis for them.

One can make an argument that all game play is, in essence, a exercise in risk management. In the kind of game you seem to prefer, a large portion of the risk is defined by the rules, and dice probabilities. Once you get an intuitive grasp of the numbers, you're good to go in making informed choices to manage your risk vs reward.

So, do you play poker? Even if you don't, do you figure that poker players don't make tactical decisions? Remember that poker is only partially about the rules and card probabilities. It is also about reading your opponent, divining their intentions. In poker, much more of the risk is in another person. You can still observe, and gain an intuitive grasp of the situation, and thus make informed choices to manage your risk vs reward. There is a basis for decisions, there is simply another source of uncertainty as well.

FATE, and Marvel Heroic, put some of the risk in another person as well. But with a caveat - that person isn't playing against you, to win in the classic sense. The GM is not particularly rewarded by the rules for grinding you into the pavement. So, another place where the classic game definition you want to stick to ceases to hold. Lacking a traditional win condition, or a traditional adversarial relationship with the other player, what will work well as rules may well also differ from the classical.

 

[Umbran]

There are objectively good characteristics of rules ...

I think that, without qualification, even this is shaky. In general, I don't think you can say a rule is objectively good or bad. At best, you'd have to say it is good or bad at achieving some defined, objectively stated end. As in, "Rule X is good at doing <specified thing>."

The very terms "good" and "bad" are *judgments*. That, right there, sits them in a subjective world. As Shakespeare elucidated through Hamlet, "...there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. "

 

[Emerikol]

I think that, without qualification, even this is shaky. In general, I don't think you can say a rule is objectively good or bad. At best, you'd have to say it is good or bad at achieving some defined, objectively stated end. As in, "Rule X is good at doing <specified thing>."

The very terms "good" and "bad" are *judgments*. That, right there, sits them in a subjective world. As Shakespeare elucidated through Hamlet, "...there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. "

You may be right.

I was thinking of Thac0. Most of us from all camps including the OSR crowd think rolling high is best. Still there are probably people out there who still love Thac0.