Oberoni Fallacy
The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.
The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.
- A rebuttal:This only really matters if you are either horribly semantically pedantic, view the rules as written as a religious tome or are just a jerk. It is true that busted rules shouldn't need to be fixed by players, but you are going to tweak the game to your tastes no matter what (by making your own setting or stopping players killing npcs and role playing instead of rolling dice) this is basically just a way for people to bitch and moan about whatever they feel is shitty without being considered pricks.
- A rebuttal to the rebuttal:There is a difference between "tweaking" the rules and completely ignoring entire rules or sections of the book. The former means you're making minor adjustments and adding new options and abilities (like feats or skills, for example) to account for a custom setting. The latter means making up entire new systems and mechanics (like a social combat system, or an altered spell-casting system) that do not exist in the original work because it doesn't do what you want it to. This is literally explained in the original post quoted lower on the page.
- A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:The fallacy is also flawed because what is and is not "broken" is subjective, thus the idea of the rules needing to be fixed is not exact. There exists no metrics to measure perceived "broken" rules. For example plenty of people do not view casters as broken in 3.5/pathfinder and play those games straight with no house rules of any kind, while other players may view casters as being to strong or to weak and make adjustments accordingly. Unless there exists metrics to measure how broken something is in a completely objective manner (something not possible when the GM can make whatever they want in the game as long as it follows the rules) the Oberoni Fallacy fails. Its existence is just evidence that people will try to find a psudo-logical means to justify their dislike of a thing.
- A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:That is just an argument against the original assertion made by the figurative "Bob", claiming that there is ultimately no such thing as a perfectly broken rule. This is a seperate argument that could be made against the assertion "there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X", a possible fourth option other than the three laid out by Oberoni. It does not, however make the argument that "there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue" any less fallacious.
- A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:The fallacy is also flawed because what is and is not "broken" is subjective, thus the idea of the rules needing to be fixed is not exact. There exists no metrics to measure perceived "broken" rules. For example plenty of people do not view casters as broken in 3.5/pathfinder and play those games straight with no house rules of any kind, while other players may view casters as being to strong or to weak and make adjustments accordingly. Unless there exists metrics to measure how broken something is in a completely objective manner (something not possible when the GM can make whatever they want in the game as long as it follows the rules) the Oberoni Fallacy fails. Its existence is just evidence that people will try to find a psudo-logical means to justify their dislike of a thing.
- A rebuttal to the rebuttal:There is a difference between "tweaking" the rules and completely ignoring entire rules or sections of the book. The former means you're making minor adjustments and adding new options and abilities (like feats or skills, for example) to account for a custom setting. The latter means making up entire new systems and mechanics (like a social combat system, or an altered spell-casting system) that do not exist in the original work because it doesn't do what you want it to. This is literally explained in the original post quoted lower on the page.
The original post
The Oberoni Fallacy is named after user "Oberoni" who made the following post to the Wizards D&D forum on July 23, 2002:
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.