Out-leveling the base setting?

[IGTN]

Actually, you had to finance the building of the castle/temple with your own money before you could attract followers. BD&D also allowed wizards to build a tower and get 1d4 low-level apprentice wizards.

Ahh; my 2nd-edition books are 1000 miles away from me, so I didn't have them on-hand to check. Also I haven't played second in years, or earlier editions ever (I started in the middle of 2nd edition).

I seem to remember something about the cleric getting a discount on the construction of their temple since the labor is offered as charity by the faithful, or something. For the fighter, I just remember the half-page of tables that you rolled on to find out what troops you got as a Lord.

The interesting thing about 4e's dungeon-crawl-uber-alles mentality is that the POL setting supports this idea more than Greyhawk or Mystara. Most of the world is wilderness overrun with monsters. In that setting, there's plenty of room to build new castles and establish baronies, as well as more incentive for the powers that be to want to expand their territory. Furthermore, responsibility can provide a more plausible motivation for continued adventuring than an inexhaustible hunger for gold. While low-level characters adventure for treasure, their higher-level counterparts adventure because the monsters threaten their subjects, economy, or political position.

Points of Light was probably the best idea to come out of the design of 4th edition. I bought both Races&Classes and Worlds&Monsters back in the design process because, at that point in design, 4th edition sounded like something I might want to play, in part because the PoL idea was such a good one, and in part because I wanted a working fix for everything in 3E.

Oberoni Fallacy is about correcting mechanics via DM as a solution, rather than inventing mechanics via DM as a solution... right?

Now, if 4e actually had mechanics for building castles and nations and such, and they simply did not work without DM intervention, that would be Oberoni Fallacy through and through... but if the rules simply don't exist, then I'd say that it is obviously in the purview of the DM and intentionally so.

As a player or DM I don't really need and especially don't want any hard and fast rules about making castles and kingdoms. I'll wing it.

The Oberoni Fallacy, in this discussion, is the statement that "The rules cover this area because, even though they say nothing about it, they say that the DM can make up their own rules." This statement is self-contradictory and useless, especially if trying to solve a problem.

Saying that you would rather wing it than have rules is a contribution. Saying that, because you can make them up as you need them, rules exist, is gibberish.

[erik]

As a player or DM I don't really need and especially don't want any hard and fast rules about making castles and kingdoms. I'll wing it.

You also need to explain why you're against people wanting this common activity. If you were planning to use your own rules anyway, then what the fuck's wrong with there being rules anyway, even if they're crappy?

People can want it, hell, people can do it. But there's only so much room for rules in the books that I'm willing to pay for, and I don't feel that they need to make guidelines about wages for peasants, construction time guidelines for all the various structures in a castle, and so forth. They'd still run off the beaten path pretty quickly via various magic innovations anyway as players will invariably think of a better (or insanely worse way that is still interesting) to get things done.

If someone wants to give a real in depth ruleset for building castles and economies and governments then it could take a whole book to detail the running and creation of kingdoms along with the various methods one could use to complete such tasks... and in the end not many people would buy that book and the few that did might still be unsatisfied. I play DnD mostly to kill stuff and be awesome, not necessarily in that order. I don't need lengthy rules on nation building or even outhouse building in order to do that. The DM can fill in the blanks.

Soooo, as a DM I could simply say, "Okay, so you've freed up a lot of farming peasants via plant growth enriched crops, and have pressed them into doing labor detail on your castle, along with a couple elementals and a few daily move earth castings to keep the the main infrastructure and heavy lifting going. Let's say it will take them a couple years to have a finished product with much thanks to the elementals, and in the meantime you can have a servicable area to live in after about 3 months as the construction continues... assuming nobody comes and starts killing your labor force or otherwise disrupting your plans."

Wing it baby.

Then get back to being awesome. And killing stuff.

[baduin]

They are finished the second part of Osric - the OGL version of AD&D 1st ed. It will have all the rules for castle-building you need. I think it will be free.

[Josh_Kablack]

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.

[erik]

Cool.

So it seems to me like the lack of a rule is relevantly different than an inconsistency, loophole or mechanics issue.

So can it be "clik's corollary" that it is incorrect to apply the Oberoni Fallacy in cases where it it posited that- if there is a lack of rule X, then it isn't a problem since the creation of a rule can be applied to the non-problem?

Or could we just call that its own fallacy? I dunno. What I do know is that I need to get in on this fallacy copyrighting jazz before all the good ones get taken!

I of course reserve the right to change it to "clik's first corollary" in the event that I get the rights to further related fallacies.

[Username17]

No, that would be the very same problem. A mechanics issue of "there is no mechanic to handle this event" is functionally identical to the mechanical issue "there is a mechanic to handle this event, but it is dumb."

People who say that there is no mechanical issue when handling something for which there is no established rules anywhere in the system are by definition wrong. At the point where games aren't played the same way because no one knows what the rules are, you've failed to be playing the same game in any meaningful fashion.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

You'll also note that Oberoni didn't name it so no it can't be clik's corollary unless someone other than you starts referring to it as such.