Oberoni Fallacy...does it exist?

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:06 pm

Stubbazubba wrote: 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?

People buy RPGs with crappy rules all the time. In fact the majority of people play 3E here and run it with a bunch of house rules. They don't seem sorry they paid money for their 3E books even though the system is crazy broken as written.

Shadzar seems to feel the same way about 2E. And Rifts still has fans, despite the rules being godawful. oWoD had poorly written rules that required a lot of DM fiat, yet was still crazy popular.

It seems that cool stuff trumps balanced rules in terms of an RPGs popularity. People only want balance after the other stuff hooks them into the system. Books are often sold more on flavor than crunch.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:28 pm

If the DM can change it, IS it a rule?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:51 pm

[quote="Quantumboost]Human or not human?[/quote]

Stevie Wonder probably qualifies as More Human than human

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:24 am

Hi shadzar!

Check this out. I opened the first page of my 3.5 Player's Handbook.

So the page says "Dungeons & Dragons" at the top. It's got a cool sword, and the "&" symbol looks like a dragon. Cool!

Right underneath that, it says "Player's Handbook."

Right underneath that, it says...wait for it..."Core Rulebook I v.3.5."

Fancy that! It's a book! Of rules! It says so as soon as it possibly can!

Reading FTW.

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:33 am

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

Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board July 23, 2002: wrote: 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 ?

Oh hey, thanks Josh. I am quite the quotable character.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:37 am

Oberoni wrote:Hi shadzar!

Check this out. I opened the first page of my 3.5 Player's Handbook.

So the page says "Dungeons & Dragons" at the top. It's got a cool sword, and the "&" symbol looks like a dragon. Cool!

Right underneath that, it says "Player's Handbook."

Right underneath that, it says...wait for it..."Core Rulebook I v.3.5."

Fancy that! It's a book! Of rules! It says so as soon as it possibly can!

Reading FTW.

You post three times in the past five years, and one of them is a response to shadzar?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:01 am

Oberoni wrote:Hi shadzar!

Check this out. I opened the first page of my 3.5 Player's Handbook.

So the page says "Dungeons & Dragons" at the top. It's got a cool sword, and the "&" symbol looks like a dragon. Cool!

Right underneath that, it says "Player's Handbook."

Right underneath that, it says...wait for it..."Core Rulebook I v.3.5."

Fancy that! It's a book! Of rules! It says so as soon as it possibly can!

Reading FTW.

i don't read trash, ergo, why i never saw that... go figure!

2e PHB wrote:Foreword

Before we even start, I want to make sure everyone understands one very important fact:

This is not AD&D 3rd Edition!

There, everyone can breathe again.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

yeah.. 3rd and the concept thereof is not welcome to all...ergo garbage...

now the edition warring is done, let get to the point at hand....

well have to bitch at 3rd some more as it IS part of the problem.

1. simple inclusion of the phrase you mention created an increase in rules-lawyers.
2. the game had them prior, and each edition told you to not fear them as a DM: 1st, barracks room lawyer, 2nd rules lawyers....
3. if not for the ignorants that THOUGHT the rules are iron-clad, then your common sense statement wouldnt be required, as a thought exercise.

i NEVER disagree that 3rd edition fucked shit up royally. its only saving grace was that 3.x had an OGL, which allows D&D to not try to be so stuck-up and formal to breed more rules-lawyers that dont understand it, but to open its design to allow for people that DO understand the principle of D&D to be able to make some money form it, and they have.

search this forum for the quotes in EACH edition that states the rules are only guidelines. not my fault people use a thesaraus too often to use the most words to make it seem as if they have a larger vocabulary when writing these books. if they stuck with one word, then maybe it would cause less confusion.

again it aint called the Player's Rulebook, and Dungeon Master's Rulesbook, now is it?

keyword spamming on the internet is bad enough for spiders to crawl over sites to try to associate it with things that really dont belong about a page, even though a site may contain it SOMEWHERE; but on a fucking dead tree stock book?

probably good ol' Bill is no longer with D&D, and probably why he only found such CONTROL of it AFTER WotC took over...

again for ALL those in the audience...the game has a series of guides. this aint Monopoly with RULES, but a book of advise and general guidelines to form what you want with it...yes that means EVEN the Rules Cyclopedia which is just D&D BECM guides all collected and prettied up all into one book.

for traditional games, sure it can apply and makes sense, but it still doesnt work so good for D&D as a whole.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:35 am

shadzar wrote:i don't read trash, ergo, why i never saw that... go figure!

Okay, I'll bite.

Why

the fuck

are you so obsessed

with a game system that, by your own admission, you've never fucking read?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:42 am

D&D =/= 3rd edition....

unlike the WotC editions, i read the core rules cover to cover, though took a LONG time with 1st as has been mentioned several times.

i had no need to read cover to cover a game systems book, that i think is a poor system. nothing else in the book would sell me on it because its basic precepts were uninteresting.

so D&D is not 3rd edition and 3rd edition is not D&D, but a part in its history...and now even to all those bashing 2e...3rd edition IS just history as 4th edition existed and has become history itself...

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:52 am

fectin wrote: You post three times in the past five years, and one of them is a response to shadzar?

It's sad, I know. I just don't play much D&D anymore. Perhaps some day again!

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:55 am

This took about five minutes of additional Google image searching, but you can see that the word "RULES" is right on the cover of the 1e book there.

Five more minutes might turn up something with 2e, I dunno. But I think you see the point. You can't be so daft that your whole argument relies on saying rules are not rules, right?

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:59 am

Oh hey, is this 2nd ed? I won't pretend to be a D&D historian like shadzar, but I will pretend to be able to read words.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:00 am

Shadzar: The Tabletop Equivalent of Herbert Moon.

Relevant part ends at about 1:25

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:01 am

shadzar wrote:D&D =/= 3rd edition....

unlike the WotC editions, i read the core rules cover to cover, though took a LONG time with 1st as has been mentioned several times.

i had no need to read cover to cover a game systems book, that i think is a poor system. nothing else in the book would sell me on it because its basic precepts were uninteresting.

so D&D is not 3rd edition and 3rd edition is not D&D, but a part in its history...and now even to all those bashing 2e...3rd edition IS just history as 4th edition existed and has become history itself...

There's the problem: you don't understand that they are all DnD.

Some were more successful implementations of the same ideas than others. For example, 3e had the most players of any edition, so that's the one that is the "most DnD" in people's minds because it's the one they played.

One can argue that 3e is the "best DnD" for the same reason.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:30 am

Actually, that's a good point. Clearly, whatever was originally, nothing earlier than 3E is really D&D anymore.

It's exactly like the US constitution (bear with me a moment). Originally, the constitution meant some very specific things: the freedom of speech in the first amendment only referred to no prior restraint, the tenth amendment explicitly forbid federal roadbuilding, and the commerce clause was so limited it couldn't even be used to stop interstate trade in anything (power to regulate trade, not to destroy it). Today, we still have a solid and specific constitution, but anyone who argues that e.g. roadbuilding is unconstitutional today is a nutjob, and the Alien and Sedition Acts would overturned on the first amendment, but not on the tenth.

Each has evolved over time, generally for the better. We can argue over whether the newer interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment are beneficial, and we can argue over whether Skill Challenges are a good thing, but noone sane supports the "peculiar institutions" of either (though THAC0 is only functionally suspect, not morally).

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:42 am

Oberoni wrote:

This took about five minutes of additional Google image searching, but you can see that the word "RULES" is right on the cover of the 1e book there.

Five more minutes might turn up something with 2e, I dunno. But I think you see the point. You can't be so daft that your whole argument relies on saying rules are not rules, right?

you might enjoy this thread on WotC forums if you wish to go back there...

and if you havent yet, see my sig... "play the game, not the rules"

Oberoni wrote:

Oh hey, is this 2nd ed? I won't pretend to be a D&D historian like shadzar, but I will pretend to be able to read words.

"this picture has been taken without permission from its copyright owner, www.trollandtoad.com "

no i think that is hotlinking to images without permission, not 2nd edition.

try TSR Archive mirror or The Acaeum since they allow for use of the images most times to be hotlinked.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:59 am

K wrote:
shadzar wrote:D&D =/= 3rd edition....

unlike the WotC editions, i read the core rules cover to cover, though took a LONG time with 1st as has been mentioned several times.

i had no need to read cover to cover a game systems book, that i think is a poor system. nothing else in the book would sell me on it because its basic precepts were uninteresting.

so D&D is not 3rd edition and 3rd edition is not D&D, but a part in its history...and now even to all those bashing 2e...3rd edition IS just history as 4th edition existed and has become history itself...
There's the problem: you don't understand that they are all DnD.

Some were more successful implementations of the same ideas than others. For example, 3e had the most players of any edition, so that's the one that is the "most DnD" in people's minds because it's the one they played.

One can argue that 3e is the "best DnD" for the same reason.

that is actually a moot point, and a reason for threads such as those on ENWorld a good while back about the dilution of the name....

D&D is NOT a single edition, but a concept that holds true through ALL editions, save for 4th edition.

YES!, i think 3.x is utter and total shit and trash, but it still holds the same concept as earlier editions, just terrible implementation. LE GASP!

4th edition tries to ret-con D&D to be something it is not or never was, once D&D came to be a TTRPG.

it is why i discount OD&D that requires CHAINMAIL to play, as it is a miniature wargame, not a TTRPG.

lest we all NOT forget Gary didnt make D&D alone...Dave Arneson's contribution cannot be left out as Blackmoor came about BEFORE Greyhawk, and it was from the ideas presented in Blackmoor, that became the TTRPG D&D rather than jsut the fantasy miniature wargame.

otherwise we would all be talking about something similar to Warhammer Fantasy Battles today rather than D&D, because it took over pretty much where OD&D left off.

the fact they all CLAIM to be D&D, and happen to have that on the cover, serves as a problem in and of itself, solely usable for people only trying to REDEFINE D&D, rather than to understand it.

if you do not understand that D&D is solely OD&D, and after the Blackmoor and Greyhawk supplements, the dilution occured, and that all other things changed, then we have no point really to discus or not even mutual understanding...but them we wouldnt be talking about TTRPGs a they were a byproduct of D&D in its original form.

so to discus the TTRPG D&D, we need to look at its beginning design purpose, and go from there...just like EVERY designer on ANY edition should have done, and not try to preach falsehoods because you disagree with a previous edition like ol' Bill did.

sadly 3rd isnt even D&D, its AD&D as an extension of Player's Options from 2nd edition...the one you all dispise, while loving at the same time, since you play a 2nd edition Player's Options clone called 3rd edition. LE GASP AGAIN!

3rd edition is really AD&D 2.75

but i digress, so unles you accept no single editoin is D&D, and the common ground of them all defiens D&D, or you are only lying to yourself and everyone else you talk to about it...UNLESS you speak solely of "3rd edition is...", "4th edition is...", whereing they diverge from the common ground of ALL editions.

(if, IF, there is much common ground left between 4th and its predecessors.)

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:10 am

Oberoni wrote:Oh hey, is this 2nd ed? I won't pretend to be a D&D historian like shadzar, but I will pretend to be able to read words.

Thats awesome.

Also, toasting in an epic bread.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:26 am

shadzar wrote:YES!, i think 3.x is utter and total shit and trash, but it still holds the same concept as earlier editions, just terrible implementation. LE GASP!

You've admitted to never even having read it, right? How the fuck would you know? Good grief, son, at least you were trying to say something sensible a few days back.

sadly 3rd isnt even D&D, its AD&D as an extension of Player's Options from 2nd edition...the one you all dispise, while loving at the same time, since you play a 2nd edition Player's Options clone called 3rd edition. LE GASP AGAIN!

S&P lets you throw out core class abilities and replace them with better stuff, and buy +1 to hit for being colour blind or a fear of spiders. 3e does not (until it did). 3e uses C&T in the same way C&T used AD&D, as inspiration, only with a dice system that doesn't drive you mad trying to use it. The core combat system's a mix of Basic and 1st edition far more than 2nd or C&T, just with clearer dice mechanics.

(if, IF, there is much common ground left between 4th and its predecessors.)

It's like 2nd edition all over again: a clunky and obtuse rule system with the worst bugs removed, a lot of extra stupid mechanical crap added that you're better to ignore, a bunch of classes with all the life sucked out of them, and a bunch of flavour stuff changed to keep the non-playing moral majority happy.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:30 am

tussock wrote:You've admitted to never even having read it, right? How the fuck would you know?

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

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.

it lost playing which was in 2nd and prior, tot he same total bullshit as character points and the other crap from Player's Options.

i think i have C&T left, and have been lucky enough to give away all the copies of S&P and DM:O that i had.

i cant remove them from the core rules HLP file or program, but my "for use backup copy" has 2.5 removed in HTML and RTF format.

and 2nd only removed demons and devils and Gygaxian prose....well the explanations of linear and bell curve distribution of dice and a few other tidbits and DMG notes. but they are the same game.

4th isnt to 3rd, what 2nd was to 1st, because 2nd and 1st are compatible with a LITTLE level adjustment here and there, while 4th is something else all together.

again cant read 1st any better now that i have lost my copies to HDD crash that i painstakingly put into wordpad all those years ago.... so havent play BtB 1st combat in decades to compare to C&T.

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!

NEPs started down a wrong wrong of trying to add and define too much stuff, and PO followed it...ergo i didnt like its parent product (2.5) so had no use for and think it (3.x) is crap.

same as with 4th, i had info up front, from Dragon, including the character generator that came with it. as the magic 8-ball said whether or not i would EVER like it... "Sign point to NO."

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.

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.

that being the case... Oberoni cannot apply unless you ALTER the game from its set of guidelines to strict rules.

and ALL editions (OD&D~4th) state, except within tournament play, that the "rules" should be followed until they cause a problem with YOUR playstyle.

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.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm

Oberoni is applicable unless there are no rules. If there are no rules, it's not a game, just a bunch of people bullshitting eachother about imaginary elves.

Oberoni · Post by **Oberoni** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:13 pm

Hey buddy, here you go! More rules.

At any rate, I love these conversations. At this point, for shadzar to not be auto-wrong, he has to argue that rules are not rules. I love that. Everything he says rests on the premise that rules are not rules.

It's absurd on its face, which is even more fun to point out. However, it's also fun to show stuff that would even directly contradict that foolish statement. Which I've done.

People on the internet don't generally admit when they're wrong, so if we're waiting for shadzar to do so, we'll be here until 5th ed and beyond. However, I've shown that even Gary Gygax himself was bold enough to, y'know, say that rules are rules. Crazy, I know, but the images are there.

Even if they weren't, I would hope by now that most non-shadzar people would have enough dignity to admit that it's nonsensical to say that a system doesn't have any flaws because the system also has a mechanism in place to allow you to correct flaws.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:22 pm

Oberoni wrote:However, I've shown that even Gary Gygax himself was bold enough to, y'know, say that rules are rules.

really? where?

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

I know you have with 3.5 because the time of your initial spiel is around that time, and maybe 3.0 since it is after 2000 that this whole thing comes about.

which again, people like you, are a reason i cannot stand 3.x and the WotC editions, because they think so wrongly that D&D is a game like traditional games that had a concrete and strict set of formal rules.

oooh the word "rules" was used as no other word fit really to apply to games.

sooo sorry you get hung up on a word, and that none other existed to fit the role of that word. like the way Gary made a mistake in explaining alignments that has caused so much gruff over the years and didnt haev time to make sure he stated IN TTHE BOOKS: "alignment is a tool for the DM to create towns and such as well as NPCs, and the players to use in the case of languages or needing to know for spells such as protection from evil/good".

you know... when you started playing, if you were so hung up on the word "rules" you could have asked someone more experienced to help you understand and clarify what the book was saying. LE GASP!

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:20 pm

Shadzar wrote: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.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:20 pm

shadzar wrote:
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.