RPGMemes

Time to whip out the Oberani Fallacy again.

Here, take a gander at this forum post from 2002.

This my my [sic] 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

Complaining about the rules is the only way we as players can effect the change for future editions. Developers listen to communities.

Yes you can homebrew your own solutions and rule changes. But if it was that easy to just create new complex systems, we wouldn't need to pay people to do it. Changing core rules can really bork a game's balance and have huge knock-on effects that aren't foreseen without significant play testing. It's also really hard to know what rules need to be changed and to what without being a game developer.

You can also switch systems. For something like D&D 5e <-> PF2e that's not a huge learning curve. But to other systems or from other systems? It can be a LOT of work on the GM and players part to completely reset their game, learn a new system, buy books, etc. For a lot of tables this might kill a game.

In the end, we should be telling the game's creators what rules are bad and if we can, how we'd like them changed. And we should complain, Loudly, if they ignore a community's feedback or make changes that seem worse. Players don't always know what's best in game design, but they can at the very least tell developers what they don't like. And they should.

This topic is often a good example of how people are more emotional than reasonable.

Someone will complain about all the things they don't like about DND, but when presented with alternatives balk and stick to DND. The devil you know, the comfort of the familiar, whatever.

Which is fine, I guess. We all do that kind of thing. I'm just as emotional as anyone else.

"I know. But I would much prefer if I didn't have to change the rules. Unfortunately, I do, because they stink."

I don't remember the last time I've ran a game RAW. There's always a tweak or two that's useful to customize things for each table.

There is a point where you go "Why did I pay for a book and then just change all the rules? Should just have made my own game."

I don't want to change them. I want to smell the stinkiness. 😤