Oberoni Fallacy...does it exist?

[shadzar]

since you are hotlinking images from other sites, i am guessing you have ZERO experience with pre-WotC D&D.

Come on, man. I can't help you if you say things like this.

hotlinking from Troll and Toad? if you have experience from pre-WotC D&D, you have heard of and can google for acaeum and TSR archive.

hell the name alone was picked because it wa simple and descriptive and common enough people COULD find TSR archive

and it was from several palces, not jsut one sources these product images were hotlinked form. i seriously question Oberoni having played D&D before 3rd edition.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Shadzar's argument in a nutshell:

[shadzar]

i never read 3rd or 3.5 books cover to cover, but FORCED to read some of it, since i had to play a few times.. and through playing those few times, i learned the concepts it had was shit.

No one forces you to play.

mainly focusing so heavily on "building" a character as you play, rather than focusing on playing. and to aid this, the quicker you leveled, the quicker you could get to the next plateau on your build itinerary.

Nope that's a play style you can totally stay at the same level for as long as you want just like 2nd edition.

but never really had any problem with 2nd combat, only 3rd as MOST DMs in this area sucked at math, but guess what.. they wanted spell angels of reflection in 3.x so i have to teach them or show them the angles every time because they wouldnt BUY or use the protractors i gifted to them! Bash

Yeah sometime you get DMs that suck.

D&D wasnt meant to be a set of strict rules. you CAN play it that way, but it was designed for each group to make D&D their own, which pretty much means that D&D, not the game you play or the one i play, CAN be strict rules, or a set of guidelines. one such guideline being PALY HOW YOU WANT.

And 3rd does this too, so what the fuck is your problem with 3rd? You keep spouting all this things that apply to 2nd as it does to 3rd.

which is why i have been against the RPGA and tournament style play since early 80's as it defeats the purpose of D&D to be an open and mutable game.

That makes no sense. If the game is mutable and you are playing in someone's game then you play by their rules (RPGA) since everyone has to be on the same page just like any play group. Just like any gaming group you can choose not to play.

so MORe than one focus changed, which led to the greater emphasis on rules being law, when a greater number of players came with 3rd. this includes those wanting that who played prior editions.

Not where I'm from. If the group didn't like a rule we changed it. We did it for 2nd, 3rd, shadowrun any game we played.

in just going to number replies, rather than breka up the quotes, cause im more likely to break the page, than get that many responses quoted right...

1. i said forced to read not play, but i was forced to participate as a DM once for a friend i owed a favor to, when his game ran late enough to encroach his shift at work...

2. presumably, but have you ever seen it with 3rd? all ie ver saw was people thinking level-grinding WAS the game. you have to get the new shiny at the enxt elvel.

3. store owner, first time DM, thought he knew it all, and didnt want to put work into the game. cant really fault him, and until he blew the world up when people "ruined his game" i didnt even mention how bad a railroad it was because it was his first time....ALL first time DMs are bad.

4. the shittier players that came new with 3rd edition. fresh off the video games, or following the rules lawyer leash. the game itself is to akin to PO, which i didnt like.

5. Gary got his biggest gruff, ill say, from a comment made in Dragon along the lines of "if you are not playing AD&D as written, then you are not playing AD&D."

this led to many today and in recent yesteryear of the whole RAW bit. he didnt mean the game people play in their own homes, but made that comment in regards to playing at RPGA events at cons. as they wanted some standardized form for the tournaments to be able to "judge" players on.

D&D being not a competitive, the concepts taking from the wargaming society in regards to tournament play, and used still in CCGs today and like competitive games, just didnt work and still dont for D&D. the idea of a "prize to the winner" is what went wrong there, because you didnt need a winner, just having something to play at the con inspires growth of D&D, and lets people meet others. gamesday type miniadventures, was all that was needed, then hell give everyone attending the D&D games at the con a copy after the event to take home and run.

6. sadly many people feel the rule is LAW, thus RAW arguments...

hope i got all the points in there.

[fectin]

We had this discussion already. Here:
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=183861 ... ht=#183861

[fbmf]

he didnt mean the game people play in their own homes, but made that comment in regards to playing at RPGA events at cons. as they wanted some standardized form for the tournaments to be able to "judge" players on.

How do you know that? I remember reading the article (as we have discussed before, I'm old too) but I don't remember him ever explaining himself or retracting the statement.

Game On,
fbmf

[Leress]

1. i said forced to read not play, but i was forced to participate as a DM once for a friend i owed a favor to, when his game ran late enough to encroach his shift at work...

You weren't forced you chose to to that.

2. presumably, but have you ever seen it with 3rd? all ie ver saw was people thinking level-grinding WAS the game. you have to get the new shiny at the enxt elvel.

I was in one that lasted a couple, until some of the people moved away. We were level 5. It was during 3.0. The things you describe happened in 2nd as well.

3. store owner, first time DM, thought he knew it all, and didnt want to put work into the game. cant really fault him, and until he blew the world up when people "ruined his game" i didnt even mention how bad a railroad it was because it was his first time....ALL first time DMs are bad.

So what was you point of bringing it up? It wasn't the system that was bad but the DM.

4. the shittier players that came new with 3rd edition. fresh off the video games, or following the rules lawyer leash. the game itself is to akin to PO, which i didnt like.

I was fresh off video games during 2nd since they were around before Dnd. That's some dumb ass statement trying to paint video games in some negative light.

5. Gary got his biggest gruff, ill say, from a comment made in Dragon along the lines of "if you are not playing AD&D as written, then you are not playing AD&D."

this led to many today and in recent yesteryear of the whole RAW bit. he didnt mean the game people play in their own homes, but made that comment in regards to playing at RPGA events at cons. as they wanted some standardized form for the tournaments to be able to "judge" players on.

D&D being not a competitive, the concepts taking from the wargaming society in regards to tournament play, and used still in CCGs today and like competitive games, just didnt work and still dont for D&D. the idea of a "prize to the winner" is what went wrong there, because you didnt need a winner, just having something to play at the con inspires growth of D&D, and lets people meet others. gamesday type miniadventures, was all that was needed, then hell give everyone attending the D&D games at the con a copy after the event to take home and run.

Once again you don't need to be part of the RPGA to do a game at a con. You don't like the way it is done, then do something else.

6. sadly many people feel the rule is LAW, thus RAW arguments...

Yeah, god forbid that people want to be on the same page about something, so they can be fair to the players.

All of your arguments have been about playstyle, that's it. Everything you said can be applied to any edition of Dnd. You don't like how the game is played fine, but don't run up and tell people they are doing it wrong when you yourself have said that the game is open and mutable. If people want to fast level so they can get their next ability that's okay. But telling them they "don't know" DnD is just plain dumb since they can say the same to you.

[Stubbazubba]

I refrained from saying this in a much nastier way a few days ago, so I'll just sum it up because it's come up again;

Shadzar, your points are entirely applicable to any edition of D&D ever, and, for that matter, to any game. You're arguing a playing philosophy which is a good idea, but rules lawyers or poor DMs or poor players are not a result of the system. Second Edition addresses rules lawyers directly, so they exist even in your ideal system. You cannot prove that Second Edition is at all better at producing the "proper" D&D-playing experience than any other edition. You're an old man afraid of changing what you already know, you feel entitled to be the master of the game because you did so once, but then the game changed and left you behind, now you cannot stand the idea of conforming to new ways of doing things out of nothing but pride. Get over yourself and start playing the game!

[DSMatticus]

Shadzar, your points

You are a dirty filthy fucking liar. Shadzar hasn't made any points.

[fbmf]

I refrained from saying this in a much nastier way a few days ago, so I'll just sum it up because it's come up again;

Shadzar, your points are entirely applicable to any edition of D&D ever, and, for that matter, to any game. You're arguing a playing philosophy which is a good idea, but rules lawyers or poor DMs or poor players are not a result of the system. Second Edition addresses rules lawyers directly, so they exist even in your ideal system. You cannot prove that Second Edition is at all better at producing the "proper" D&D-playing experience than any other edition. You're an old man afraid of changing what you already know, you feel entitled to be the master of the game because you did so once, but then the game changed and left you behind, now you cannot stand the idea of conforming to new ways of doing things out of nothing but pride. Get over yourself and start playing the game!

I was with you up until the end (the part I bolded).

He is welcome to play any edition of D&D he likes. He just needs to stop with the ideas that:

(A) his preferred edition is the One True Edition and
(B) that 3rd and 4th Edition are not really D&D, and
(C) 3E and 4E players are not playing real D&D

That is what makes him annoying and what gives the long time veterans a bad reputation. I am one of the "long timers", and newer groups tend to lump me in with die hard grognards like Shad.

Game On,
fbmf

[Stubbazubba]

Apologies.

I didn't mean to imply any edition specifically, I too am happy that he enjoys 2e with other people who enjoy it, I think that's great. I should have phrased it "just play the game" or "get back to enjoying the game instead of waving your self-congratulatory superiority complex in the faces of your fellow gamers" instead of "start playing the game."

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I found that self-congratulatory superiority complexes are entirely OK, even required, in the Den. Shadzar has deeper problems that I can't articulate to my satisfaction, so I'll leave this as is.

[fbmf]

"get back to enjoying the game instead of waving your self-congratulatory superiority complex in the faces of your fellow gamers"

I can certainly get behind that!

Game On,
fbmf

[Wrathzog]

hotlinking from Troll and Toad? if you have experience from pre-WotC D&D, you have heard of and can google for acaeum and TSR archive
...
and it was from several palces, not jsut one sources these product images were hotlinked form. i seriously question Oberoni having played D&D before 3rd edition.

And where Oberoni pulls images from has about as much relevance to what versions of D&D he's played as to whether or not he's from the moon and he eats Moon Cheese.
Do you want people to stop instantly shitting all over you in every thread?

Yeah, god forbid that people want to be on the same page about something, so they can be fair to the players.

I actually agree with Shadzar on this, though.
There is more to the rules than just keeping everyone on the same page; there is more to D&D than just the rules. A lot of people get tripped up over that second part and they can lose sight of that whole story-telling aspect of a TTRPG by starting giant rules lawyering shitfests when they interpret a certain sentence in the Stealth Rules differently than you do.
It turns out that it doesn't fucking matter and it interferes with the narrative. I blame the Wizards forums for... nurturing that sort of mentality.

[shadzar]

he didnt mean the game people play in their own homes, but made that comment in regards to playing at RPGA events at cons. as they wanted some standardized form for the tournaments to be able to "judge" players on.

How do you know that? I remember reading the article (as we have discussed before, I'm old too) but I don't remember him ever explaining himself or retracting the statement.

Game On,
fbmf

it was either in a later Dragon, or on dragonsfoot.org Q&A

cant load my Dragon Magazine Archive right now to even find the original comment to be able to look for the source of the reply there or online.

(A) his preferred edition is the One True Edition and
(B) that 3rd and 4th Edition are not really D&D, and
(C) 3E and 4E players are not playing real D&D

also, i am not a sheep. WotC can label anything the way they want with what they own. that does not mean i must accept it, only that i must respect they have the right to name it so.

i owe NOTHING to WotC, nor does anyone else. "the customer is always right". too many businesses these days ignore the customer and the workmanship and design of MANY products are worse for it.

a. i dont claim that, again you and many others try to attribute that to my comments.
b. they are not if i say they are not, as well other costumer enough say so. that is what can make the company change the product. that IS how 3rd and 4th and even 2nd came to be.

The people who really decided what needed to be done for the AD&D 2nd Edition game are the players who mailed in questions, everyone who wrote an article for DRAGON® Magazine, and everyone who button-holed me (or other designers) at conventions. These were the people who decided what needed to be done, what needed fixing, what was unclear, and what they just didn't like. I didn't sit in a vacuum and make these decisions. As the designer and developer, I had to make the final choice, but those choices were based on your input. And your input is the most valuable asset we have going.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

the same hold true for 3rd where it was said somewhere, and we should all remember if being for 4th, and now we have the feedback L&L articles from Mearls.

the designers are asking "what is D&D?", so they know what to make, rather than doing as you think they are and just deciding like Gary did.

c. to say 4th players are playing D&D beyond it having the name on the product, is like saying someone playing GURPS is playing D&D. again the problem is the name doesnt define anything anymore after too many things have been created with that name.

it is the problem of saying "D&D has powers and paragon paths." or "D&D has prestige classes."

both of these statements are false, because the do not apply to the whole. each is ONLY true to ONE edition...not counting .5 as a REAL edition in either case.

the following statements ARE true, "4th edition has powers and paragon paths", "3rd edition has prestige classes"

which brings back to A...the true people claiming ONE TRUE D&D, are moreso the new edition players that make the above wrong statements that claim "D&D is..." about the newest edition, ignoring the fact, that these statement do NOT hold true as you move backwards and for EACH edition.

it is like comments in the past that people make "when i speak to someone about D&D i assume they know D&D to stand for the newest edition"...that is a stupid assumption to make from small minded people, including WotC. but at least with WotC you know WHY they do it, because they ONLY product the most current edition and disconnected themselves from prior ones.

that is where edition wars always start, with someone making a claim about D&D...but they really mean a single edition.

my statements on "D&D is..." apply to all editions and their common ground 95% of the time.

[Leress]

I blame the Wizards forums for... nurturing that sort of mentality.

I don't know why you would since that was going on before WOTC even had Dnd. There has always been rules lawyers, just now with the internet and a central forum to gather it just seems like there are more.

[shadzar]

And where Oberoni pulls images from has about as much relevance to what versions of D&D he's played

actually it does, it shows itself as a fallacy based in claiming 3rd edition, as it was the one and only one he seems to know at the time of its creation, to the the ONE TRUE D&D.

he assumed all editions work form his frame of mind that rules are rules as laws to be followed within D&D. that was not the case even for 3rd as i posted a list of those quotes for all edition, and someone provided the 3.x quote form the book for me. it is on this forum somewhere you can find it.

to MAKE the Oberoni fallacy work, the rules must be strict rules....aka you must be a RAW player. that or you have to add to it.. a simplified version with the edition would be something like...

"where the rules are to be followed and assumed to be correct: 'the rules aren't broken if we can fix them' is a logical fallacy"

again why i say, where the rules are guidelines Oberoni cannot apply.

it does try to show where problem rules can exist within the game, or confusing ones; that might even help future version of the game correct these problems; but as the original presented here is written, it comes off as the height of rules lawyering. what EVERY rules lawyer aspires to become as enlightened as he.

can there be an inconsistency with a guideline? yes, if it is presented several times and gets worded awkward in the different cases.

can there be a loophole in a guideline? not really. again the reason is the game is not meant to have a rule for everything, because the designers dont want to take that time, even IF they knew all the posible outcomes of EVERYTHING done within the game at peoples home games.

can there be a mechanics issue with a guideline? no...guidelines arent mechanics. mechanics are mechanics, not rules or guidelines...they just show math in use.

but Oberoni isnt dealing strictly with math functions and problems within the game.

again Oberoni can work well where games have stricter rules to follow than D&D, other than that, it is a sweeping general assumption based on an idea of ONE WAY TO PLAY, not the intent of the game.

and remember it came out at the same time the major RAW v RAI started coming around.

i follow neither of those, so using RAW Oberoni to defend against me, a some have tried, matters not, as I would fit in the GAI (game as intended) category as i am not a rules lawyer to even be involved in the RAW v RAI.

Oberoni assumes RAW playstyle is common for all...which of course is incorrect.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

also, i am not a sheep. WotC can label anything the way they want with what they own. that does not mean i must accept it, only that i must respect they have the right to name it so.

i owe NOTHING to WotC, nor does anyone else. "the customer is always right". too many businesses these days ignore the customer and the workmanship and design of MANY products are worse for it.

This is absolutely true. However, it also cuts both ways. I am not beholden to TSR.

And WotC doesn't ignore it's customer base, no more than TSR did. What you seem to either be forgetting or ignoring is that no edition except perhaps the very very very first one came out in a vacuum. Each and every revision of D&D that has ever come out was based on revisions and complaints by the player base. Each and every one. You can't say that WotC doesn't listen to the customers. You can claim that they listen to the WRONG customers, but that's a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

(Incidentally, 'The customer is always right' is not the mantra of good and successful businessmen anyway, it's the mantra of spoiled and entitled jackholes who are trying to scam something they don't deserve out of a business owner. But that's hardly germane to this conversation)

[Leress]

(Incidentally, 'The customer is always right' is not the mantra of good and successful businessmen anyway, it's the mantra of spoiled and entitled jackholes who are trying to scam something they don't deserve out of a business owner. But that's hardly germane to this conversation)

Actually it that is the mantra of successful business men, because they know that with out customers there is no business.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

There is a difference between catering to a customer's needs in a professional manner, and giving any meth-addled hick who can roll out of the "hollers" free stuff because they can scream real loud. The customer is most certainly not always right.

[fbmf]

b. they are not if i say they are not, as well other costumer enough say so.

Oh, is that the rule*? Fuck me, I feel so stupid. We, then, here we go:

I have been buying D&D products with my own money since 1991. I have been a customer of TSR, stayed on as a customer when they were bought by WotC in 1997, became a customer of WotC directly when they dropped the TSR name from their products when the conversion to 3.0 happened. Over the course of the four editions (1E product was still available when I first started buying D&D stuff even in the little jerkwater town I'm from, and I am ashamed to say I own exactly one 4E product) I blown literally thousands of dollars as a "D&D customer".

And as a bonafide "D&D customer, I hereby do ordain and establish 3E and (oh, what the hell) 4E as official D&D, or at least just as official as the previous editions. Because I say it is, and I am a customer.

Game On,
fbmf


* - or is it just a guideline?

[shadzar]

also, i am not a sheep. WotC can label anything the way they want with what they own. that does not mean i must accept it, only that i must respect they have the right to name it so.

i owe NOTHING to WotC, nor does anyone else. "the customer is always right". too many businesses these days ignore the customer and the workmanship and design of MANY products are worse for it.

This is absolutely true. However, it also cuts both ways. I am not beholden to TSR.

And WotC doesn't ignore it's customer base, no more than TSR did. What you seem to either be forgetting or ignoring is that no edition except perhaps the very very very first one came out in a vacuum. Each and every revision of D&D that has ever come out was based on revisions and complaints by the player base. Each and every one. You can't say that WotC doesn't listen to the customers. You can claim that they listen to the WRONG customers, but that's a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

the first one didnt come out in a vacuum either as it wa made for players of Chainmail, which in turn was made for players of the wargame society...and they game feedback on them.

it is just the playerbase and "target market" to use one of today's fancy terms was much much smaller back then...because it was made for themselves.

when did i say WotC didnt listen to its customers?

your next post neglects that not all businesses are for the same purpose. you just assume "business = make the most money possible"

TOO BIG TO FAIL, come to mind?

some businesses, and the ones where the phrase came from, was those that provide custom products. custom...customer...see something in those 2 words...

everything used to be made custom, and people got exactly what THEY needed, not some over generalized product made for mas production.

so one business makes things for the consumer/customer, while the other makes them to make the most product they can quickest.

you cant always listen to the customer if you have to stop your mass-production to do so.

[shadzar]

And as a bonafide "D&D customer, I hereby do ordain and establish 3E and (oh, what the hell) 4E as official D&D, or at least just as official as the previous editions. Because I say it is, and I am a customer.

Game On,
fbmf


* - or is it just a guideline?

you are still missing the point. you are focusing on legality not acceptance.

[DSMatticus]

Firstly, have we provided sufficient evidence that nearly every core book so far has labelled its content rules, clearly, on its cover? Yes. In light of the fact that the content of these books are clearly indicated as rules, irregardless of edition, Oberoni's fallacy applies.

Secondly, D&D is a TTRPG, which is table-top roleplaying game, and before that, it was a wargame, and games all have one thing in common: rules. By definition. Oberoni's fallacy applies.

Thirdly, let us presuppose that D&D has no rules and that there are only guidelines or whatever stupid shit shadzar thinks. Oberoni's unofficial second fallacy: "The guidelines aren't stupid if you can ignore or change them." But you are ignoring or changing the guidelines, which supposes that they were stupid, blah blah blah.

Oberoni's fallacy actually generalizes really, really well. There are probably formulations of it that apply to nearly any system of states where some are desirable, and the fallacy would read like "any state which can lead to a desirable state is also desirable." That is an obviously fallacious statement, and it works for systems of rules, systems of guidelines, states of atoms, or playing the damn lottery (winning the lottery is a desirable state; playing the lottery leads to winning the lottery; playing the lottery is an undesirable state).

[Leress]

There is a difference between catering to a customer's needs in a professional manner, and giving any meth-addled hick who can roll out of the "hollers" free stuff because they can scream real loud. The customer is most certainly not always right.

If they want free shit, they are not a customer.

[DSMatticus]

If they want free shit, they are not a customer.

Replace free with absurdly small denomination of cash.