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

[Emerikol]

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.

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?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Any rule that ... could possibly be abused by a bad DM is a bad rule.

Based on that logic all rules are bad rules. Stop the RPG industry; we're done.

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.

 

[Emerikol]

Based on that logic all rules are bad rules. Stop the RPG industry; we're done.

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.

I agree with everything you say.

My emphasis perhaps is on rules that deliberately allow some GM adjudication on purpose. Kind of like the Charm Person spell in 5e. I think rules should assume at minimum a GM that is trying to do right by the players. They should not assume a veteran of 30+ years. They should assume good intent. GMs with bad intend should be shunned.

 

[Halivar]

It's essential that I have a ruleset that I can memorize easily and not have to consult books in play. The more minutiae that the rules cover, the less I am able to run it RAW. Give me the 20% of rules that I need 80% of the time, and I can wing the rest.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They should assume good intent. GMs with bad intend should be shunned.

The trouble is that it's not binary in reality, Emerikol. DMs aren't good/evil. Almost every godawful game-stopping, unfair-seeming, DM fiat-ish ruling I've ever seen came from a DM who, if you'd cast "detect truth" on him or whatever, would have passed as having at least "honest intent". Even Mr Orc Babies.

Good intent is not at all the same as good decision-making or good DM'ing either. Indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is for that reason that rules should be designed so that they aren't likely to create bad situations. Obviously sometimes you can't do that. But what you can do then is give good guidance as to how to adjudicate the rule.

If you have a rule that seems likely to create bad situations AND you don't give good guidance on it, then I really do think that rule is a problem. Do you disagree?

EDIT - The rules should assume that the DM is:

A) Not a total bastard.

and

B) Human and therefore very fallible.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree that rules will often need to be interpreted by the DM and that's perfectly acceptable. I even encourage them to a point. However, if rules are vague to the point that a wildly different interpretation is actually LIKELY then they are too vague.

For instance, "PCs can regain all their hitpoints after rest of approximately 8 hours with no more than an hour gap." is fine. A DM can say "Sure, I'll allow you to get a long rest even though you were technically awake for 2 hours because you rested a total of 9 hours." A DM can say that standing around is still resting since it doesn't say. That's fine.

On the other hand, if a rule is written like this: "PCs can regain all their hitpoints after resting for a long period of time.", the rule is so vague as to be useless. One DM might assume a long time is a month while another assumes it's an hour. Might as well not have a rule at all if you write them this vaguely.

And it certainly doesn't excuse real abuses of the Oberoni Fallacy, which are fairly rampant. The problem is there is likely an overlap between the Emerikol Falacy and the Oberoni Fallacy in the case of extremely vague rules.

I submit that the last resting example I give above is a BAD rule because it is so vague that a DM interpreting it badly could ruin the fun of an entire game. It's written in such a way that it REQUIRES DM interpretation to even use it. Now, a lot of people will say "Yeah, but if you're DM rules that a 'long period of time' is 8 hours, then the rule is perfectly acceptable." Which is pretty much the definition of an Oberoni Fallacy. It's a bad rule that can be fixed through DM interpretation...but that doesn't make the rule good.

 

[Emerikol]

If you have a rule that seems likely to create bad situations AND you don't give good guidance on it, then I really do think that rule is a problem. Do you disagree?

EDIT - The rules should assume that the DM is:

A) Not a total bastard.

and

B) Human and therefore very fallible.

I thought that A&B were addressed in my post and one response. I think A&B should be assumed.

I am definitely not for rules that are likely to create a bad situation. That definition though might be applied differently by the two of us.

Let's suppose the Charm Person spell's description said the following...
Assuming the target is not in active conflict with the party, their attitude towards the caster becomes one of a friendly acquaintance.

Now that to me would be minimally good. Would I add a few more caveats and explanations just to make it almost child proof? Sure. Why not? Still your reasonably competent DM can run with the initial statement and wouldn't need anything more. He knows what a friendly acquaintance is and can act on that knowledge to make adjudications when the players try to use their new relationship.

A lot of utility spells get criticized for not being precise enough. Personally I think too much precision can suck the life out of the power. It's not intended to be hyper precise.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thought that A&B were addressed in my post and one response. I think A&B should be assumed.

I am definitely not for rules that are likely to create a bad situation. That definition though might be applied differently by the two of us.

Let's suppose the Charm Person spell's description said the following...
Assuming the target is not in active conflict with the party, their attitude towards the caster becomes one of a friendly acquaintance.

Now that to me would be minimally good. Would I add a few more caveats and explanations just to make it almost child proof? Sure. Why not? Still your reasonably competent DM can run with the initial statement and wouldn't need anything more. He knows what a friendly acquaintance is and can act on that knowledge to make adjudications when the players try to use their new relationship.

A lot of utility spells get criticized for not being precise enough. Personally I think too much precision can suck the life out of the power. It's not intended to be hyper precise.

The point, which you appear to agree with, is that there is a balance to be struck. Once you accept that, the question is where that balance is, you can't claim "Emerikol Fallacy", only "We disagree!". I think your charm definition is way too vague, for example and indeed likely to cause problems. Presumably you do not?

Also I think your notion of DM "competence" is hopelessly vague, and is a THIRD criteria, too! I've certainly seen experienced DMs go to bad places due to vague-ness and poor rules.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

RPG Rules exist to answer a series of simple questions:
1. Can my character do this? Yes/No/Maybe.
2. If maybe, what are the chances?
3. What are the results of success and failure?

Rules should be clear. Ambiguous rules are not helpful to anyone. They might occur through poor communication on the part of the designers or by the designers not fully analyzing the implications of their rules. These are objectively bad rules.

At the same time, I don't have a problem if the designers say: "Devising rules to cover this extremely complex situation would result in a baroque, unplayable monstrosity. We have therefore decided to leave implementation to the good judgment of the DM based on what is happening in play and the needs of the game." Purposely leaving the resolution of certain situations in the hands of the DM is not necessarily bad game design. No game can realistically give 100% coverage of all scenarios and variables. Designers should still give DMs advice for adjudicating these situations within the system, optimally giving examples.

I'm also a fan of books like 13th Age, wherein the designers have sidebars scattered throughout explaining their design decisions and giving options for DMs in running their own games--along with advantages and disadvantages of various approaches.

 

[Emerikol]

RPG Rules exist to answer a series of simple questions:
1. Can my character do this? Yes/No/Maybe.
2. If maybe, what are the chances?
3. What are the results of success and failure?

Rules should be clear. Ambiguous rules are not helpful to anyone. They might occur through poor communication on the part of the designers or by the designers not fully analyzing the implications of their rules. These are objectively bad rules.

At the same time, I don't have a problem if the designers say: "Devising rules to cover this extremely complex situation would result in a baroque, unplayable monstrosity. We have therefore decided to leave implementation to the good judgment of the DM based on what is happening in play and the needs of the game." Purposely leaving the resolution of certain situations in the hands of the DM is not necessarily bad game design. No game can realistically give 100% coverage of all scenarios and variables. Designers should still give DMs advice for adjudicating these situations within the system, optimally giving examples.

I'm also a fan of books like 13th Age, wherein the designers have sidebars scattered throughout explaining their design decisions and giving options for DMs in running their own games--along with advantages and disadvantages of various approaches.

As long as a set of DCs is defined in the game so that
DC 5 - easy
DC 10 - moderate
DC 15 - hard
.... and so on.....

Then a DM can answer your questions given a "vaguely" described spell like charm person above.

The players asks "I want to convince my new acquaintance to let us inside the palace that he is guarding"
The DM thinks - hmmm. He is only an acquaintance and he will get in big trouble if found out. I'll choose a DC of 25 for super hard.

The idea is to teach the DM a range of DCs that make sense. Then the DM can look at the natural situation and set DCs based upon his own experience and understanding of the world. That is his job.
[MENTION=16326]Ruin[/MENTION]Explorer
Keep in mind Ruin that I think any DM with good intentions will quickly become moderately competent. He has is own life to draw upon. He doesn't have to be consistent with other DMs. He only has to be consistent with his own rulings. The players will quickly learn how his world world. It's also okay has a player to ask how hard something will likely be and get an answer like "hard" which means something like DC 15.

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.