Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6795288" data-attributes="member: 996">So only important to the degree that game balance is prioritized as a design goal.&nbsp; Oberoni may have been terribly relevant to 3.5 when it was dreamed up, but less so to 2e or 4e - and not at all to 5e.&nbsp; The 5e DM isn't just allowed to change the rules, he's expected to overrule them consistently.&nbsp; Complaining about Oberoni in your 5e D&amp;D is like complaining about macaroni in your Kraft Mac &amp; Cheese.&nbsp; It's a foundation, not a fallacy.&nbsp; &nbsp;The idea of the Oberoni fallacy is that you can't defend the quality of a rule by pointing out that you can fix it.&nbsp; Nothing much to do with taking the DM out of the equation - nor is refraining from pushing game-(re)-design work on the DM fundamental to D&amp;D being 'really D&amp;D' (other in the nostalgic sense of it being like D&amp;D when it was at it's most primitive).&nbsp; 5e tries to appeal to as broad a set of current and past D&amp;D fans it possibly can, that requires a lot of flexibility, and leaving large swaths of play open to (or even in need of) DM rulings is a big part of delivering that.&nbsp; It's not that you can't have a clear/consistent/expansive/complete system that handles a broad range of styles, either, but the alternative of 'Empowering' the DM has the virtue of evoking the way we ran games back in the day, when the game &quot;needed fixing.&quot;&nbsp; Today, it's not that 5e is broken, but that it's open.Bottom line, Oberoni doesn't apply to 5e.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how good a system is, you can always toss it and go free form if you want to.&nbsp; No one can stop you.&nbsp; With an at least basically functional system, you just also have the option of playing 'RAW.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6795288, member: 996"] So only important to the degree that game balance is prioritized as a design goal. Oberoni may have been terribly relevant to 3.5 when it was dreamed up, but less so to 2e or 4e - and not at all to 5e. The 5e DM isn't just allowed to change the rules, he's expected to overrule them consistently. Complaining about Oberoni in your 5e D&D is like complaining about macaroni in your Kraft Mac & Cheese. It's a foundation, not a fallacy. The idea of the Oberoni fallacy is that you can't defend the quality of a rule by pointing out that you can fix it. Nothing much to do with taking the DM out of the equation - nor is refraining from pushing game-(re)-design work on the DM fundamental to D&D being 'really D&D' (other in the nostalgic sense of it being like D&D when it was at it's most primitive). 5e tries to appeal to as broad a set of current and past D&D fans it possibly can, that requires a lot of flexibility, and leaving large swaths of play open to (or even in need of) DM rulings is a big part of delivering that. It's not that you can't have a clear/consistent/expansive/complete system that handles a broad range of styles, either, but the alternative of 'Empowering' the DM has the virtue of evoking the way we ran games back in the day, when the game "needed fixing." Today, it's not that 5e is broken, but that it's open. Bottom line, Oberoni doesn't apply to 5e. It doesn't matter how good a system is, you can always toss it and go free form if you want to. No one can stop you. With an at least basically functional system, you just also have the option of playing 'RAW.' [/QUOTE]

Verification