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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It doesn't seem that subjective. If the rule can't be parsed without getting a ruling on what it means, it's prettymuch /requiring/ DM intervention.

Take the way d20 requires you to get a DC from the DM. You can still roll without knowing the DC, but the DM is going to have decide if your roll matches the DC or not. He may have guidelines, perhaps even very specific ones for the target, but he can always apply modifiers. That doesn't /require/ the DM intervention to make the mechanic work. It's merely resolving something with the player on one end (with his bonus & d20 roll) and the DM on the other (with the DC). The mechanic, itself, is clear.

OTOH, if you have a case where the rules just don't cover something - say crafting in 4e, for instance - then when you try to act in that area, the DM /must/ make some sort of ruling to cover it (like assigning it to whatever adventuring skill he thinks is closest). It's left to DM interpretation because it's outside the intended scope (adventuring).

Other examples would be the original wording of Commander's Strike in 4e, or using Improved Trip to Trip an enemy with an AoO when he stands up in 3.5, or, more recently, the thread, here, about breaking Concentration and how that works with multiple missiles from a single casting of Magic Missile.

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.

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:

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.

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:
Ten Bears:[/B] 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.

If that's the best you can do to explain your disagreement, we'll have to agree to disagree.

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.

I'm not seeing how it's taking too far. Oberoni says don't judge a rule by how a well a good DM can fix it up. How is judging a rule by how badly a poor DM can screw it up taking that too far? An example of taking Oberoni too far might be concluding that even good rules are bad, because they work well for good DMs.


In both cases, the fallacy is in the fact that the proposition can only have one conclusion. That is, in Oberoni, the supposition that a bad rule is good if a good enough DM can fix it means that all rules are good, because any rule can be fixed by a good enough DM. Flipping that around, if you suppose that a rule is bad if a bad enough DM can screw it up, then all rules are bad. Both examples of fallacious reasoning rely on the ability of the DM to override rules, in order to block an honest evaluation of a given rule.

Frankly, if you shade your fallacy just slightly differently, and say 'bad player' instead of 'bad DM,' you'd have a very different, and arguably not fallacious at all, statement.








Edit: It's also a little silly to sort DMs and rules into binary good|bad. Clearly there are better and worse DMs and better and worse rules - but all on a continuum. The idea that a good enough DM can make up for a bad system doesn't mean that only bad DMs suffer from bad systems. for instance (actually, bad DMs revel in bad systems). Rather, it acknowledges that there are DMs good enough to run an excellent game given a decent system, but not exceptionally skilled/talented/experienced enough to run even a decent game if the system is /really/ bad. Even the best DM can run a better game, more easily, given a good system rather than an abysmal one.

 

[Umbran]

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.

That's basically it. If it delivers a play experience someone likes a whole lot, you can't call it objectively bad.

Which doesn't mean you should publish a new mass-market game using it - we don't need objective badness to step away from a mechanic. We only need sufficient subjective badness.

 

[Kraztur]

Edit: It's also a little silly to sort DMs and rules into binary good|bad. Clearly there are better and worse DMs and better and worse rules - but all on a continuum.

I agree, if it's a given that the entire continuum is also subjective.

But is that tangential to the OP? I don't know if the Emerikol Fallacy is claiming that a rule is "good". I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's trying to assert that the rule is not "bad". It's not ascribing a quality of "good". It's attempting to prevent the ascribing of "bad".

I mean if a rule is written in a book lying in a forest and nobody is there to read it, is the rule good or bad?*


* Trick question. The answer is neither.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I think you can't "win" D&D, but you can accomplish your goals within the game, whatever those may be. To me, the rules(and possibly the game itself) is entirely about adjudicating whether or not you accomplish your goals, whatever those may be. It might be defeating the ogres or rescuing the princess or simply making a really good pie.

It is precisely because many narrative based games let you automatically succeed in a lot of ways that makes them less fun as a game for me.

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?

I agree 100%. In this case, I'm just stating my opinion. But it kind of brings us to the crux of this discussion. For a lot of people, a rule that requires a lot of GM adjudication might actually be a "bad" rule...for them at least. In that it creates a game that isn't the game they wanted to play at a fundamental level.

Since "good" and "bad" are subjective words in the first place, the question becomes for whom is it good or bad?

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.

I don't. For almost precisely the reasons you state here. Although there ARE tactical decisions involved, too many of the factors are hidden from you to make a good decision entirely from facts. Sometimes you just have to go with your "gut". Which is to say, guess...with some experience to back you up. But it's still guessing. I don't like to guess, I like to KNOW.

I don't like to gamble with anything that I can't predict at least 70% of the time. I like things to be predictable. That's why I don't buy lottery tickets or go to casinos. Everything is rigged so as to have horrible odds.

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.

That's precisely where it breaks down for me. The DM doesn't care whether you succeed or fail. The game doesn't care if you succeed or fail. There's no rules to objectively determine whether you succeed or fail so the decision rests entirely on someone who could go 50/50 on any of their decisions depending on how they are feeling that day.

It makes my decisions feel pointless because it doesn't matter what actions I take, in the end the results will be entirely 50/50. I don't really increase my chances of success by gathering information and planning in advance. The DM could decide that it'd be more fun for me to fail and either stack modifiers against me that are entirely in their purview or simply decide that I fail depending on how much power the system gives the DM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wow, OK. 'Good' and 'bad' can be qualitative, certainly, but they're not necessarily wholly subjective - and they can have very different meanings, too, they can refer to morality for instance, but also might refer to competence or functionality.

Some good/bad moral or aesthetic judgements may, indeed, have a subjective dimension to them. OTOH, quality in the sense of functionality can often be measured quite objectively.

Rules in an RPG are subject to both aesthetic and functional judgements of good and bad, as well as wholly subjective judgements of preference that can be conflated with them.

 

[Emerikol]

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:

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.

The mistake you make Tony is thinking that an open ended game is free style. It provides guidelines at a higher level than every instance. It doesn't mean it's free style. That is hyperbole which is something your good at I admit.

I'm not seeing how it's taking too far. Oberoni says don't judge a rule by how a well a good DM can fix it up. How is judging a rule by how badly a poor DM can screw it up taking that too far? An example of taking Oberoni too far might be concluding that even good rules are bad, because they work well for good DMs.

When I said take it too far, I meant taking it beyond what it really means. It means that a lousy rule is still lousy even if a good DM could fix it. That is it. It cannot be argued though that a rule that fails with a bad DM is a bad rule. That would be an example of taking it too far. And perhaps instead of using the term DM, I should be using the term DMing. That way it applies across your continuum.

In both cases, the fallacy is in the fact that the proposition can only have one conclusion. That is, in Oberoni, the supposition that a bad rule is good if a good enough DM can fix it means that all rules are good, because any rule can be fixed by a good enough DM. Flipping that around, if you suppose that a rule is bad if a bad enough DM can screw it up, then all rules are bad. Both examples of fallacious reasoning rely on the ability of the DM to override rules, in order to block an honest evaluation of a given rule.

Then you agree in the validity of both the Oberoni Fallacy and the Emerikol Fallacy.

Edit: It's also a little silly to sort DMs and rules into binary good|bad. Clearly there are better and worse DMs and better and worse rules - but all on a continuum. The idea that a good enough DM can make up for a bad system doesn't mean that only bad DMs suffer from bad systems. for instance (actually, bad DMs revel in bad systems). Rather, it acknowledges that there are DMs good enough to run an excellent game given a decent system, but not exceptionally skilled/talented/experienced enough to run even a decent game if the system is /really/ bad. Even the best DM can run a better game, more easily, given a good system rather than an abysmal one.

I address this above. A rule is not bad just because bad DMing could abuse it. I do find though with DMs that you really can most of the time put them in three camps: good, trying to be good, and bad(evil). That middle group is usually only in question because of experience. Those trying to be good will in fact become good with some practice and learning from mistakes. D&D is not that hard to DM. It does require for some playstyles a lot of work. It's not intellectually hard work. It's just time and effort.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The mistake you make Tony is thinking that an open ended game is free style. It provides guidelines at a higher level than every instance. It doesn't mean it's free style.

Huh? I said that FATE /wasn't/ trying to force you into Freestyle RP.

When I said take it too far, I meant taking it beyond what it really means. It means that a lousy rule is still lousy even if a good DM could fix it. That is it. It cannot be argued though that a rule that fails with a bad DM is a bad rule.

Certainly not if it failed because the bad DM changed it, just to break it rather than to fix it.

A rule that fails - whether fixed by a good DM, noted by a less-skillful DM who can't figure out a way to fix it, missed entirely by a clueless DM or reveled in by a bad DM - would still be a bad rule, though.

Then you agree in the validity of both the Oberoni Fallacy and the Emerikol Fallacy.

Assuming I'm following the definition of the latter correctly and it's not 'taken too far,' sure.

A rule is not bad just because bad DMing could abuse it.

OK, now you've got me wondering. What do you mean by 'abuse?' In Oberoni, it's fallacious to conclude a rule is good just because a good DM can /fix/ it. Which, IIRC, means changing or 'house ruling' it. I assume by 'abuse' you mean messing with the rule in some way (changing, ignoring, willfully-misinterpreting, selectively-applying or something of that nature), not merely adhering to the rule to the detriment of the players' and campaign.



Edit: Oh, just one more thing... About the title of the thread. How is your fallacy a fallacious use of Oberoni? Wouldn't that be concluding that a good rule is bad just because a 'good' DM 'fixed' (modified) it and still got a good result? Don't both of these fallacies just say "evaluate the rule based on the rule, itself, not on what DMs of varying competence and good-will/malice might change them into."

 

[Savage Wombat]

I keep reading this thread, and remain somewhat confused. It sounds like there has been another argument somewhere, in which someone specifically called out a particular rule (or rule system) as being "bad" because it led to potential DM abuse. Without that context, I feel like I'm reading a strawman argument. In the general, not-pointing-fingers sense, [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s fallacy makes me say, "well, yes, and?"

 

[Emerikol]

Edit: Oh, just one more thing... About the title of the thread. How is your fallacy a fallacious use of Oberoni? Wouldn't that be concluding that a good rule is bad just because a 'good' DM 'fixed' (modified) it and still got a good result? Don't both of these fallacies just say "evaluate the rule based on the rule, itself, not on what DMs of varying competence and good-will/malice might change them into."

Some people get confused and believe the Oberoni Fallacy implies more than it does. If you are not confused and I assume you are not then of course the shoe does not fit. I've just seen it bandied about a lot in a way that implies they don't fully understand the Oberoni Fallacy.

I will give and example which perhaps spawned the idea. The charm person spell. It says in plain English that it changes the target's reaction to friendly acquaintance.

Now a totally incompetent one could adjudicate that a friendly acquaintance might allow his friends into the bedroom of the King who he is sworn to protect. They just want to gaze upon royalty is their reason. I believe such a ruling would indicate incompetence on the part of the DM. Just because you are a friendly acquaintance you would not totally abandon duty.

Another example. Suppose my character enters a store and we cast charm person on the owner. I then state I am asking the owner for a free bottle of his finest ale that costs like 25gp. The DM that gives him the ale is an incompetent DM. Friendly acquaintances don't just give away things that cost such a massive amount of money from the eyes of the proprietor.

So I'm sure you could dress up these scenarios to make them more palatable and I agree. I'm just saying that leaving a rule open to reasonable DM judgment does not make it a bad rule if DMs make ridiculous judgments because they are incompetent or deliberately malicious.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will give and example which perhaps spawned the idea. The charm person spell. It says in plain English that it changes the target's reaction to friendly acquaintance.

Thanks, it's clear folks were starting to wonder what sparked this (apart from wanting a fallacy named after you, obviously).

I'm not sure that spell is a great example. Several eds have defined 'friendly' reactions, I would expect 5e to eventually do so, which'd make the spell clearer. 'Room for improvement' doesn't exactly mean 'bad,' but I can see how folks might be impatient.

So I'm sure you could dress up these scenarios to make them more palatable and I agree. I'm just saying that leaving a rule open to reasonable DM judgment does not make it a bad rule if DMs make ridiculous judgments because they are incompetent or deliberately malicious.

That's not a case of the DM actually changing, nor even ignoring, the rule, though. If it were, I could see how it would be fallacious for the same reason as Oberoni.

Got any other examples?