Neonchameleon
Legend
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.