The Gaming Den

along the lines of this:

"a rule isnt broken if it can be fixed."

first that is a pretty stupid statement. in order for something to [can be fixed] it has to be broken in some form, so it isnt really saying much now is it?

now in regards to RPGs, not all but many; can the Oberoni Fallacy even exist?

Monopoly: Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Solataire: red cards can only be played on the board on black cards on the next higher rank, and vice versa for black cards on red; except the king which can be placed into an empty stack.
Football (american): you must line up with your team on the side of the invisible line that designates your teams current portion of the field, and may not line up on the opposing team's side.
Futball (soccer): Only the goalie may use their hands to touch the ball, unless the ball is being put into play from going out-of-bounds.
Basketball: you may not possess the ball without moving for more than 5 seconds. (however long it is....)
Chess: the king cannot move into check.

these are all rules. 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.

since they aren't really rules, can you apply a theorem about rules to them in such a manner, without that theorem itself being a logical fallacy?

It exists pretty much by definition.

A rule is broken if it doesn't work (i.e produces absurd results when applied that can be agreed to be unintend or absurd.)

If you change the rule or fix it to avoid brokenness then you are implicitly admitting the original error.

There's a clear logical problem in claiming that because you fixed a problem there was no problem, because then you would not have fixed it. So there's something there that can be called a fallacy. If that is what you really intended to mean.

Of course given that the claims that the Oberoni fallacy is intended to debunk are inherently absurd, charitable reading should demand that one clarify that the other really does intend to make an absurd claim before jumping to conclusions.

lol.

Hello everyone, welcome to a shadzar troll thread.

Why is a troll thread? Well, shadzar's positions always come from this assumptions:

*D&D 3rd edition is the BEST EDITION EVAH!!! because it focus on REAL roleplaying.
*All bad things about it (like crap rules or fighters licking the balls of wizards) are to be ignored because 3rd edition is the BEST EDITION EVAH!!, I mean, "real roleplayers ignore said stuff".
*4th edition is for filthy munchikins.

PS: I could care less about 4th, I just try to point why this thread is useless. Hint: shadzar is a muppet.

I would disagree on your assertions, Gx. Shadzar clearly believes that 2E was the greatest edition ever, not 3e.

Dog Quixote wrote:Of course given that the claims that the Oberoni fallacy is intended to debunk are inherently absurd, charitable reading should demand that one clarify that the other really does intend to make an absurd claim before jumping to conclusions.

That may be the problem i have with it most, that while the principle is sound...the implementation often fails.

i can see it in regards to 3rd, that MANY rules just didnt work as written, and some due to typos from bad editting or copy/pasting...i wouldnt say a typo can enlist Oberoni, as a typo as mentioned 11d6 v 1d6 in the other thread, ISNT the "rule" but a typo.

i am just trying to work my way backwards to see what criteria exists to make Oberoni work, as it seems some obvious things from RECENT editions of D&D, but in regards to past editions, you have to state again that a rule is broken and being fixed to enforce Oberoni on it...

I dont recall seeing it as such in regards to things prior to 3rd edition. not saying it cannot, but seems, even with 3rd; that Oberoni is a bit silly in light of there being no "rules" to D&D, save for maybe 4th and its streamlined concise codification moreso than any before it; as D&D is a set of guidelines.

D&D is like building a house. the house needs a floor and a roof as the guidelines, but nothing states you have to build the floor(s) first before building the roof as the "rule". (ignoring building codes and local laws, as the goal is to build a house to use, not build a house to code.)

Yes.

I think, with some of the earlier editions, you could possibly draw a distinction between rules that are incomplete and rules that are broken.

Certainly if rules for something don't exist and I make them up, then I'm not fixing a broken rule. (Arguably I could be fixing a broken game - but the mere fact that it is arguable makes the use of a fallacy in such a situation questionable.)

Of course there could be a related fallacy that holds that you can't claim a system is not incomplete because you made a rule to plug a gap.*

But if you regularly make on the spot rulings to cover rules that don't exist then this becomes complicated again. If there are a set of implicit rules about how to approach situations that are not in the written rules then incompleteness becomes questionable.

Edit* I really think this should be called the Titania fallacy.

so an extension to Oberoni could be "the game isnt broken because we can fix it", but then you would have to PROVE that the game is actually broken, which is MUCH harder, than proving a "rule" is broken.

so considering that Oberoni deals with rules, if you assert the game has no rules, then Oberoni cannot apply...in it written form without further articles being added.

shadzar wrote:so an extension to Oberoni could be "the game isnt broken because we can fix it", but then you would have to PROVE that the game is actually broken, which is MUCH harder, than proving a "rule" is broken.

Applying a fallacy to an entire game isn't particularly useful, because it risks being either overly subjective or overly trivial.

Subjective because we're likely see disagreement about how many broken rules are needed to label a game broken, or trivial because, if you insist that a game that contains any broken rules is itself broken you win the logical argument (assuming semantic agreement) but risk losing touch with games that are perfectly playable and fun on a basic everyday level.

so considering that Oberoni deals with rules, if you assert the game has no rules, then Oberoni cannot apply...in it written form without further articles being added.

Provided you can get people to agree that a game has no rules. That might prove difficult.

Dog Quixote wrote:

so considering that Oberoni deals with rules, if you assert the game has no rules, then Oberoni cannot apply...in it written form without further articles being added.

Provided you can get people to agree that a game has no rules. That might prove difficult.

i think if the GAME agrees that there are no "rules", then that is more substantial, than if the players think so.

2e DMG wrote:The rules are only guidelines.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

as well the other statements of the like in ALL other editions.

the books aren't named Player's Rulebook, and Dungeon Master's Rulebook...and while like myself very verbose..Gary did chose words carefully for the most part, and those words have been agreed upon rather than changed to include "rulebook" since WotC has taken over the reigns from T$R. So the value in not calling them "rulebooks" must exist, and have a reason.

NOW, if a game book is called a "rulebook", then i will assume they are rules, and the least deviation from them should apply under normal circumstances, and as such inside them would be rules, that are designed with the intent of working as written, barring typos. EX: Monopoly "rulebook".

Hmmm. Whether you call them rules or guidelines doesn't really matter.

A guideline can still be a broken rule in situations when it is used as a rule.

If I fall from 10,000 feet and fail to die from damage (produce an agreed upon absurd result) then the fact that according to the book the rules are really just guidelines doesn't change the fact that if I create a new house guideline to deal with similiar situations I have deviated from the written text and evidently found it unsatisfactory. It would still be fallacious of me to argue it was previously satisfactory. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

All calling them guidelines does is highlight the element where significance is important. You might argue that the failure of the falling rules to cover a fall from 10,000 feet is not a significant failure in the system. Calling them guidelines perhaps gives some authority for the DM to say, "10,000" feet, we really don't need to role the dice here you're dead."

We must be careful however not to fall for another type of trivial distinction where we claim, "The game isn't broken because the rules allow for the DM to overule any absurd results."

Dog Quixote wrote:Let's not get caught up in semantics.

when looking at things like a logical fallacy, you sort of have to look at the meaning of the word.

does Oberoni state what it means? you have questioned that, i think it was you int he other thread. wherein i thought about the existence of the typo and applying Oberoni to it. that would be silly.

we must then look at the meaning closely.

is a square a rectangle, for example. the answer is yes, all squares are rectangles. but not all rectangles are squares.

we must looka t the meaning of the words used to make sure they are the correct word used, in order to understand them.

rectangle: a 4 sided polygon, with 4 90 degree angles.

a square is a rectangle, albeit a special one that adds tot he definition of a rectangle for its purpose: with all 4 sides being of equal length.

so IF Oberoni states that all game instructions are rules, then it MIGHT be applicable, but still i would want proof. if someone believes that, then, while incorrect int he belief; they would be applying Oberoni correctly as they understand it correctly, however, they are not understanding the game "instructions" to consider them as "rules" under the common definition.

a rule must be followed, else there will be consequences.

a guideline is advise.

instructions tell procedure in order.

these words are NOT fully interchangeable.

can they be replaced within Oberoni and still work?

"guidelines are not broken if we can fix the guidelines"

can guidelines be "broken"? they can offer bad advise, but that doesnt make them "broken" in the sense the term broken has for its common meaning.

"instructions are not broken because we can fix them"

again, instructions cannot be broken, so this wont work.

the way i must be used them must be "rule" as close as can be to "law", something that must be followed to maintain the status quo.

it is good in concept, but like Stormwind, does it really function? the principle is sound, but does it apply with a game, that doesnt have laws of play, but rather advise on a common method to play.

Oberoni can work for Monopoly, as it has a set of laws for the game, but i still don't see it that applicable to an RPG, that doesnt have a law. All half-orcs didnt have to be the spawn of rape victims, and in MANY games didnt exist as such. Elves do not have to hate dwarves. while these may seem like only being flavor, isnt that flavor a defining characteristic, and what one could call a "rule" of the game as it defines a part of it?

flavor being intrinsic to the system, then it must be a rule, and can Oberoni apply to a systems flavor?

maybe Oberoni is too simplified and needs some exposition.

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

"There are no rules, the DM makes everything up as you go along and his word is final" is...gasp...a rule!

CapnTthePirateG wrote: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?

Archmage wrote:"There are no rules, the DM makes everything up as you go along and his word is final" is...gasp...a rule!

It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Fucking rules, how do they work?

....you've got to be kidding me.

Are you honestly, sincerely so tunnel-visioned that you actually believe D&D is actually MTP by another name? Are you trying to say that Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply to it based on that assumption? Why would you pay money for such a product?

The fact that MTP can be done right does not legitimize rules-less or incomplete systems, and the reason why is "opportunity cost." When you spend $X on an RPG book, you are giving up the Y food, rent, video games, DVDs, etc., that $X would otherwise bring you. In return, you expect the RPG book, with the mechanics and systems inside, to make your game of MTP better by adding that layer of structure. If the mechanics are incomplete (meaning they do not, to some degree, adequately explain how to adjudicate success of any genre-appropriate action in any genre-appropriate scenario) or do not produce reliable, desired results, then you would have been better off spending your $X on pizza and beverages, or a novel to read, or flowers for your significant other, or what have you, as those all would produce more benefit than the more frustrating MTP you are now playing.

You can call those mechanics rules, guidelines, instructions, principles, regulations, it's actually irrelevant. At the end of the day, if the writing in that book did not increase the benefit of your game with friends more than rules-less MTP but with pizza would, then you are better off without it. The Oberoni Fallacy states that if the rule is only applicable if you make up a better one in it's place, the benefit the RAW provides is, overall, decreased, and at some point that benefit will no longer outweigh the cost associated with the book* in units of pizza eaten, novels read, or girlfriends laid. Semantics are, in this case, truly irrelevant. All that matters is the benefit the mechanics provide to your game, compared to what you forego to get them.

*This depends on how much $X really is; if D&D cost $2 to play, it could afford to have a really incomplete rules-set or things that didn't make sense, but when the PHB costs $31, DMG costs $23, and MM costs $25, it had better be more entertaining as written than a large pizzas ($15 + tip), and Starcraft 2 ($50)

Josh_Kablack wrote:Fucking rules, how do they work?

I don't think Gygax ever really decided.

It's a miracle we have a game at all. Motherfuckin' miracles.

shadzar wrote:along the lines of this:

"a rule isnt broken if it can be fixed."

A fallacy is a logical step which is not supported by its precedents (specifically, it is a non-sequiter, "does not follow"). To be a fallacy, it must fill both conditions. For example (anyone who knows the right format for these, forgive me):

Assertion A: "Roses are flowers"
Assertion B: "flowers smell nice"
Assertion C: "Shadzar is a space alien"

C is definitely a non-sequiter. However, because I did not make a logical argument, it's not a fallacy. Continuing:

Assertion A: "flowers smell nice"
Assertion B: "Raffalesia are flowers"
Conclusion C: "Raffalesia smell nice"

C is wrong, but not actually fallacious. A is simply a false premise. Finally:

Assertion A: "Roses are flowers"
Assertion B: "Roses smell nice"
Conclusion C: "flowers smell nice"

C is fallacious. Specifically, it's a Hasty Generalization: the false conclusion that some A have quality X means that all A have quality X. If we look at the form of the Oberoni Fallacy, it is as follows:

Question: "Does item A have quality X?" (Is this rule broken?)
Assertion A: "Item A can be replaced with Item B" (The DM can change this rule...)
Assertion B: "Item B does not have quality X" (...to one which isn't broken...)
Conclusion C: "Therefore, Item A does not have quality X" (...so this rule isn't broken.)

C is clearly a logical argument, which does not follow from its precedents, and so is fallacious. Note that A and B are non-sequiters, but are not themselves fallacious. You have to actually assert that the original rule is fine, or it's not Oberoni.

shadzar wrote: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.

Dog Quixote wrote: 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.

Awwww, PR is getting upset that he's being out-trolled.....

shadzar wrote:

CapnTthePirateG wrote: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