Oberoni Fallacy...does it exist?

[Leress]

Protip: Shadzar doesn't really know anything about 3rd Edition.

[UmaroVI]

Hey shadzar, I've got an RPG to sell you. It's called Advanced Go And Fuck Yourself.

Here are the rules, but they are just guidelines. If something isn't covered by the rules, the GM should adjudicate the situation appropriately.

If a PC is shadzar, that PC goes and fucks themselves.

[Chamomile]

I started with one of Shadzar's posts and used the principle of explosion to derive his credit card number.

[Judging__Eagle]

Seriously, why is that next-gen 2e clone getting all the attention?

D&D was obviously a wargame about individual members of a warparty. The AD&D notions of "roleplay" that came about in 2e can go and fuck themselves.

Obviously, because the original was better, and no amount of evolution or change could ever improve upon its structure or conent.

Shadzar, the fact that you're a 2e grongrad instead of a 1e grongrad is sad and demeaning. You should obviously know better, however you happily frolic with the other demented idiots of AD&D land (excepting 4e, as it is obviously a reboot of Mike Mearl's own sloppily designed settings and system, and not truly a D&D based system).

The notion of the Oberoni fallacy is correct, a person cannot claim that something is "not a problem, because the local authority can re-form the laws"; without being declared insane by people with cogency.

[Dog Quixote]

If I fall from 10,000 feet and fail to die from damage (produce an agreed upon absurd result)

That isn't actually an absurd result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

Surviving a terminal velocity impact does require additional factors such as landing on a slope or in soft snow, but the damage roll is almost certainly an abstraction and you can easily all that sort of fluff to the scene.

For the sake of argument....

Honestly it doesn't mater. I was looking for an example. Any example will do. It's just better than saying "If rule A is produces and absurd result"

[Dog Quixote]

THIS





FUCKING





THREAD

Well you're a charmer.

[shadzar]

Why would you pay money for such a product?

probably what many people asked Gary when he set out to make the game beyond OD&D, but he went forward anyway.

something you could actually ask about ANY miniature wargame even, since you can make up for yourself the "stats" of a representative piece. why GW learned that changing the rules often will be the only way to sell rules, as their biggest product is the miniatures, something most people cannot make for themselves, while everyone can determine what to do with the "toys" they own, as well why many games GIVE you the rules, and used to give them to you free without cost, while they charge mainly for the playing pieces.

Axis and Allies, sold spare armies for a LONG time, and you could buy the board, and anything else piecemeal, bot a SASE would get you a free copy of the rules. having the rules you can play the game without the proprietary playing pieces.

the funny thing about D&D is no playing pieces exist.

TSR sold pencils, dice, maps, miniatures, but none of these needed be gotten from them.

as long as D&D is still based on D&D, and has a DM...the game will ALWAYS be based on and rely on MTP.

[shadzar]

Assertion A: "Item A can be replaced with Item B" (The DM can change this rule...)

RPGs for the most part due to their nature, at least D&D, is not formed from strict rules that must be adhered to, but a set of guidelines to form the framework of being able to have a game in the midst of telling a story where a group of [persons] has an adventure or series of adventures.

Your premise is false. Games are defined by their rules. If there are no rules, there is no game. Either you're playing the game of DnD, or you're all sitting around bullshitting each other about elves.

i cut most jsut to show something, that presents Oberoni to BE a fallacy in and of itself.

If the DM can change it, IS it a rule? are referees in football, soccer, baseball, basketball, etc allowed to change the rules during play? does the "banker" in Monopoly, should someone jsut want to play banker, even though there is no real position of such within the game...maybe you just lost some pieces or this person doesnt want to play but wants to be with the group...anyway... does the banker in Monopoly get to change a Community Chest ruling that states the player just gets $150 dividends?

i can see why some people want a DM-le system, but then you lose all openness, or various other things. within D&D, the rules are NOT absolute, and EVERY edition has told DMs; "change what doesnt work for your group, be it mechanics or flavor", then is there really a "rule" within D&D?

rather than rules that can be "broken", or i shall say "unbalanced", D&D is concepts that are flawed.

lets add those into OBeroni and see if they work:

"a rule isnt unbalanced, because we can balance it"

ok, balance can replace brokenness because the statement still holds true comparing opposites.

"a concept isnt flawed, because we can fix it"

this doesnt work so much, as a concept is an idea, it has no basis on whether it is a shared idea or not, and D&D never assumes everyone shares the same type of game, due to varying playstyels, and purposefully they set forth for the game to be able to handle several playstyles.

there is no rules that states you have to be raised from the dead when a character dies, and none either that says you may not. everything is a set of choices given by the DM, as HE interprets the rules. some thing may be shared by many groups but there is no ONE WAY TO PLAY, D&D.

the game of D&D was defined by the fact it wasnt a set of rules, but rather guidelines. other RPGs came about and existed, and still do in production or in play, because of their flavor, not the guidelines. the guidelines only serve to temper that flavor.

[shadzar]

So, by this logic, the incantatrix metamagic fool is balanced because the DM can say no?

the what?

im not really one to be saying this, but did you spell check that post and use the right words? if so what did you say?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22incantatrix+metamagic+nuker%22

so 3rd edition class+skills/feat+whatever was unbalanced....

possibly why Oberoni came out in 2003~2005, also 4th edition stating "everything is core" because everything is supposed to go through the same scrutiny of playtesting.

i still, no matter the source, say that everything outside of the "core" is optional. if it was intended to be a focus of the game, then it would have been IN the game, so they are not really "rules" as much as "house rules". every setting from FR to eBerron is just someones house rules for D&D. does the presence of a campaign setting say the rules were broken and needed to be fixed, or proven that there are no rules, since they can be chanced on a whim?

Protip: Shadzar doesn't really know anything about 3rd Edition.

know VERY little about it.

[shadzar]

Shadzar, the fact that you're a 2e grongrad instead of a 1e grongrad is

because poor eyesight and Gary's books, dont make good company, and the larger text in 2nd edition books make for MUCH easier reading without headaches.

probably why i play BD&D and AD&D2e since, you know ic an read them...

[A Man In Black]

So basically this thread:

[shadzar]

like 1e books, i cant read that due to eyesight. so whatever...

for others wanting to reflect on AD&D and its purpose, and how to use the "rules"....

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewt ... se#p276372

To adhere to rules that do not further the game enjoyment is contrary to the purpose of the whole. The game must be entertaining and enjoyable.

Cheers,
Gary

this says nothing about a "rule" being fair, balanced, etc, but just enjoyable; such as maybe using assassins in your world if they dont fit your theme, or using ANYTHING that detracts form the "fun", in Gary's case thespianism trying to turn an AD&D game into a ren-faire.

so in light of there not really being any "rules" that MUST exist in EVERY game, then they are only guidelines for making your OWN game, so Oberoni cannot exist within the published product.

that doesnt mean something cannot be utter crap in the published product, but that D&D was NEVER a "complete" game such as Monopoly, or chess, and you had to finish it yourself as DM and players.

[Judging__Eagle]

so Oberoni cannot exist within the published product

lawls, I would certainly hope not, seeing as Oberoni was the person who realized the fallacy, not the fallacy themselves.

Also, if you can't read the above comic, or even something like the original D&D pamphlets, I'm unsure as to how you're even able to read our posts in the first place.

I offer the the shadzar fallacy, shadzar is not an actual human, but rather a processor stack of animal, plant or mineral format that is stuck in a 2e recursion loop somewhere.

[Quantumboost]

I offer the the shadzar fallacy, shadzar is not an actual human, but rather a processor stack of animal, plant or mineral format that is stuck in a 2e recursion loop somewhere.

Humans are totally animal processor stacks, those aren't mutually exclusive.

[Neurosis]

THIS





FUCKING





THREAD

[Judging__Eagle]

I offer the the shadzar fallacy, shadzar is not an actual human, but rather a processor stack of animal, plant or mineral format that is stuck in a 2e recursion loop somewhere.

Humans are totally animal processor stacks, those aren't mutually exclusive.

True, however humans have the capability of being able to see within the narrow spectrums between infrared and ultraviolet (aka. human visible light) of the EMF spectrum; which shadzar has claimed to be incabable of replicating, several times.

[Quantumboost]

True, however humans have the capability of being able to see within the narrow spectrums between infrared and ultraviolet (aka. human visible light) of the EMF spectrum; which shadzar has claimed to be incabable of replicating, several times.

Human or not human?

[Hicks]

Hey Shadzar, pro-tip: keep not reading 1e, it sucks.

[fectin]

Assertion A: "Item A can be replaced with Item B" (The DM can change this rule...)

RPGs for the most part due to their nature, at least D&D, is not formed from strict rules that must be adhered to, but a set of guidelines to form the framework of being able to have a game in the midst of telling a story where a group of [persons] has an adventure or series of adventures.

Your premise is false. Games are defined by their rules. If there are no rules, there is no game. Either you're playing the game of DnD, or you're all sitting around bullshitting each other about elves.

i cut most jsut to show something, that presents Oberoni to BE a fallacy in and of itself.

If the DM can change it, IS it a rule? are referees in football, soccer, baseball, basketball, etc allowed to change the rules during play? does the "banker" in Monopoly, should someone jsut want to play banker, even though there is no real position of such within the game...maybe you just lost some pieces or this person doesnt want to play but wants to be with the group...anyway... does the banker in Monopoly get to change a Community Chest ruling that states the player just gets $150 dividends?

i can see why some people want a DM-le system, but then you lose all openness, or various other things. within D&D, the rules are NOT absolute, and EVERY edition has told DMs; "change what doesnt work for your group, be it mechanics or flavor", then is there really a "rule" within D&D?

rather than rules that can be "broken", or i shall say "unbalanced", D&D is concepts that are flawed.

lets add those into OBeroni and see if they work:

"a rule isnt unbalanced, because we can balance it"

ok, balance can replace brokenness because the statement still holds true comparing opposites.

"a concept isnt flawed, because we can fix it"

this doesnt work so much, as a concept is an idea, it has no basis on whether it is a shared idea or not, and D&D never assumes everyone shares the same type of game, due to varying playstyels, and purposefully they set forth for the game to be able to handle several playstyles.

there is no rules that states you have to be raised from the dead when a character dies, and none either that says you may not. everything is a set of choices given by the DM, as HE interprets the rules. some thing may be shared by many groups but there is no ONE WAY TO PLAY, D&D.

the game of D&D was defined by the fact it wasnt a set of rules, but rather guidelines. other RPGs came about and existed, and still do in production or in play, because of their flavor, not the guidelines. the guidelines only serve to temper that flavor.

I concede your point.
As you have previously pointed out, the DM is another player at the table. As you make an excellent case for here, no one player can arbitrarily change the rules of the game. Thus, per your own arguments, the rules are just that: rules (not guidelines).

[shadzar]

all players are rectangles.
the DM is a square.

the DM is a player.
a square is a rectangle.

a DM is a special player.
a square is a special rectangle.

does it make more sense to you now?

[ishy]

The oberoni fallacy is about how you present your argument. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE RULES / GUIDELINES or whatever.

Just imagine it like this:
A isn't broken because I can fix it.

A can be anything, from your car, sledgehammer, rpg rules, anything.

And it is a fallacy because if you need to fix it, it isn't working perfectly.

So discussing if the games rules are guidelines or not is irrelevant.
Nor is the fact if A is actually broken relevant either.

[Josh_Kablack]

Anyone who knows how to both use Google and read English woulda found and understood this before making a thread:

This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

• "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
• "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
• "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

And for those of you who like interacting with people incapable of using search engines or reading, might I suggest a visit to your local animal shelter ?

[shadzar]

nope, in all the searching, never found that written as you quoted in all the time looking for it, only ever saw condensed version of it.

[fectin]

all players are rectangles.
the DM is a square.

the DM is a player.
a square is a rectangle.

a DM is a special player.
a square is a special rectangle.

does it make more sense to you now?

Right. So all the normal rules apply to him, plus extra rules, exactly like squares and rectangles.

[A Man In Black]

Hey shadzar, I've got an RPG to sell you. It's called Advanced Go And Fuck Yourself.

Here are the rules, but they are just guidelines. If something isn't covered by the rules, the GM should adjudicate the situation appropriately.

If a PC is shadzar, that PC goes and fucks themselves.