Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 calronmoonflower Oct 20, 2007 1:19:52	The Oberoni Fallacy states that because you fixed something with rule 0 means that it had to be broken in the first place. The basic logic it that if you changed it with rule 0 means that it wasn't like that before. The natural evolution of this is what I call the Oberoni Principle. [indent]Though rule 0 is the rules as written any specific application of rule 0 is not the rules as written. This is because if it was the rules as written you would not have needed to change it with rule 0 to make it so.[/indent] So basically if you state that a specific application of rule 0 (also known as a house rule) is the rules as written you have made a basic error in thinking. If it was actually a written rule you would not have had to sight rule 0 for support. Why Is The Oberoni Principle Is Important Do to rule 0 any anything is potentially the rules. We need a baseline that we can all refer to when engaging in discussions on Dungeons and Dragons. Do to need of such a baseline the term Rules As Written came to be. With that baseline we all have something solid that we can all share to refer to when discussing subjects on the board. Violating The Oberoni Principle A Violation of the Oberoni Principle is a formal fallacy as the premise contradicts the conclusion. Any application of rule 0 is not the Rules As Written by definition. Countering a Violation of the Oberoni Principle If you think someone is claiming that an application of rule 0 you should first ask for a quote. It may turn out that they simply made a mistake or are using a written rule that you are not familiar with. If that doesn’t work point out that using rule 0 doesn’t make something the Rules As Written. If someone is especially stubborn and says that every use of rule 0 is the Rules As Written try this “I rule 0 away rule 0”. That should highlight their flaw in thinking. The Rule 0 Fallacy is a way of thinking that is closely connected to a Violation of the Oberoni Principle. When ever you see one the other could be present as well. They are closely linked, but separate ideas. What Is The Rule 0 Fallacy? [indent]When discussing the Rules As Written supporting or rejecting a position based on rule 0 (a house rule).[/indent] Why Is It A Fallacy? The Rule 0 Fallacy is a formal fallacy because under the Oberoni Principle any use of Rule 0 is not the Rules As Written. House rules are not relevant when discussing the Rules As Written unless the area is not covered within the Rules As Written. Countering A Rule 0 Fallacy First make sure that it is actual instance of rule 0 being referred to instead of a part of the Rules As Written that you are nor familiar with. Asking for a quote is the easiest way and it also will reveal honest errors as well. The next step is simple enough. Call it what it is, a house rule.
#2 billthemaniac Oct 24, 2007 15:17:42	I thought Oberoni was "[rules element] is not a problem in [game system], because you can use rule 0 to deal with [rules element]". Closely related to yours, but not the same.
#3 Book5 Oct 27, 2007 20:50:48	Wow, thats pretty ... pointless? I mean your logic is sound, but I fail to find your grounding. Lemmee try to paraphrase, Using rule 0 is RAW, but the creations of rule 0 are not. Yep.
#4 calronmoonflower Oct 28, 2007 20:30:03	Wow, thats pretty ... pointless? I mean your logic is sound, but I fail to find your grounding. I have personally debated those that did not understand the difference between the Rules As Written and house rules. I've also seen those that bring house rules (like custom magic items) into debates to try to prove a point. Neither of these are common but it was done enough that I typed this up. Lemmee try to paraphrase, Using rule 0 is RAW, but the creations of rule 0 are not. Yep. That is the Oberoni Principle. You got it on one try, but not all will.
#5 leo Oct 31, 2007 13:59:26	So let me see, you say that a rule isn't a rule and call it logic. Rule 0 is probably the most important of the game. It allows people to change the game to their personal likings. Ironically, you can only ban rule 0 using rule 0, since rule 0 is a rule of the game, even if you like it or not. But if you ban rule 0 then you can't ban it because there is no rule left able to do so and you are back to the starting point. D&D isn't perfect. Honestly, no game is perfect. But thanks to rule 0 people can enjoy D&D a lot more. If there wasn't rule 0, D&D would have died a loooooong time ago and we wouldn't be even talking about this. Claiming that rule 0 shouldn't be taken in consideration in boards discussions is thus the same as saying D&D shouldn't be taken in consideration, because D&D is rule 0 based. I would put my hand on fire that 90% of the players worldwide play using rule 0 one way or another. So you can't really discuss D&D game play without taking it in account. Finally, this (fake) fallacy fails to direct to the main problem in boards discussion:rules interpretation. Many rules can have different meanings depending on the way you read them. Actually, 99% of the "broken" combos out there are based on questionable interpretation of the rules. And the result is that the creators of the combos claim that they are supported by the Oberoni fallacy because they are using RAW, when actually they are using their own interpretation of the rules.
#6 calronmoonflower Nov 04, 2007 12:50:13	So let me see, you say that a rule isn't a rule and call it logic. Actually I didn't say that. I made a destination between house rules and the Rules As Written. House rules are rules and players are required to follow them Rule 0 is probably the most important of the game. It allows people to change the game to their personal likings. I agree. However, using it on the boards when discussing the Rules As Written doesn't work. Rule 0 supports all positions equally. Ironically, you can only ban rule 0 using rule 0, since rule 0 is a rule of the game, even if you like it or not. But if you ban rule 0 then you can't ban it because there is no rule left able to do so and you are back to the starting point. I only brought that up as a counter argument for those that refuse to make the distinction between the the Rules As Written and house rules. D&D isn't perfect. Honestly, no game is perfect. But thanks to rule 0 people can enjoy D&D a lot more. If there wasn't rule 0, D&D would have died a loooooong time ago and we wouldn't be even talking about this. Claiming that rule 0 shouldn't be taken in consideration in boards discussions is thus the same as saying D&D shouldn't be taken in consideration, because D&D is rule 0 based. I would put my hand on fire that 90% of the players worldwide play using rule 0 one way or another. So you can't really discuss D&D game play without taking it in account. Huh... no. I acknowledge the importance of Rule 0. I believe that you missed my point. Saying that something is the Rules as Written because Rule 0 can be used to make it so is an inherent contradiction. Saying "I Rule 0 your argument away." doesn't work either. Finally, this (fake) fallacy fails to direct to the main problem in boards discussion:rules interpretation. You have offered nothing to show that the fallacies (I presented two of them) are fake. As I offered logical reasons why they are fallacies and you offered no true rebuttal they stand. Well so far at least. Secondly that must be done one at a time. No one article could ever counter anything but a small portion of that kind of thing. Many rules can have different meanings depending on the way you read them. Actually, 99% of the "broken" combos out there are based on questionable interpretation of the rules. Yes, I've seen some of those. I've even been accused of using Rule 0 to counter them when I was using a strict reading of the Rules As Written. Though this article will not make a major impact on such it can be used here and there to counter a few of those arguments. And the result is that the creators of the combos claim that they are supported by the Oberoni fallacy because they are using RAW, when actually they are using their own interpretation of the rules. MMMmmm... I would suggest that you read this. Two main points that you can use against such is equivocation and the Cube fallacy. The second is in Regdar's Repository somewhere.
#7 tzor Nov 05, 2007 12:14:15	I’ve always liked the Oberoni Fallacy (it is not the Oberoni Principle). Not many people get to wear T-Shirts that say “I invented a fallacy and all I got for it was this lousy T-Shirt.” (Honest, I saw him wear it several years ago at a Gen Con.) The Oberoni fallacy states that the following argument is a fallacy, “There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.” Rule 0 should never be an excuse to permit rules that don’t work or don’t play well with others. Rule 0 is designed as a way to allow a DM to custom tune the game for his or her style of play or as a means to keep a game from being bogged down in details. I would add one important addition to the Oberoni Fallacy, “If you have to invoke Rule 0 to fix an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X then you will have to invoke Rule 0 again and again for every supplement/module/core rule is based on the official Rule X as written. This can be recursive since Rule Y could be based on Rule X and all the supplements based on Rule Y also have to be Rule 0ed as well.” This is why bad rules are … well bad. Because they are used in turn by other rules and by various modules based off of those rules. Some rules can probably be avoided by using Rule 0. I think the best example is the horrors of loopholes that allow one access to infinite and virtually free wishes. Very few official supplements are based on the broken nature of such wish economies. Never the less, it is fallacy to think that because of Rule 0 the problem doesn’t really exist in the first place. Thank you Oberoni, who is, by the way, not the San Francisco treat. (That would be Rice-A-Roni!)