| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
From an anonymous author here. I have to admit, I've been guilty of a few of these myself. An understanding of these fallacies may help alleviate some of the futile and/or circular arguing that goes on in certain threads.
Yeah, right. At least it'll make for an interesting discussion.
1.The Realism Fallacy
This fallacy is basically caused by someone forgetting that the RPG is make-believe and therefore the only rules that exist are the ones we want to exist. Therefore saying something is "realistic" is no excuse for it being bad game design, even if it is realistic for our world. If the option is unequal and advertised as equal, and doesn't work as the FICTIONAL universe is supposed to work, it's bad game design no matter how accurate it models real world physics in magic dragon land.2. The Band-Aid Fallacy
This fallacy states that if a solution to the imbalance or bad design exists in the system, no problem exists. For instance if an extremely minmaxed Monk using every book is equal [or nearly so] to a Wizard in Pathfinder, that means the system is balanced, even if 99.9% of Monks are far weaker. This is a very common fallacy to use in game discussions, because it lets you focus on particulars instead of the broad design flaws. You get wrapped up in little solutions in-system, instead of recognizing the flaw in the system itself, and start picking apart John C /tg/'s Ubermonk build, instead of the vast number of Monks who don't work at all as advertised, as their fluff suggests, or in a balanced fashion.3. The Stormwind Fallacy
This one is already known and is famous. Basically put it states that roleplayers can't rollplay, or that people who care about game mechanics don't care about stories. I like to call this one the "No true roleplayers fallacy". The main reasons people will bring up this fallacy is to get mad at discussions themselves, rather than anything thats being said. People who make this fallacy will often ask /tg/ why they care about mechanics instead of story, little realizing that the people in that thread probably have rich campaigns going on, many of them using the very system currently being critiqued.4. The Anecdote Fallacy
This fallacy simply states that because a given gamer has not experienced a game design problem, it does not exist, despite the testimony and theorycrafting of many other individuals.5. The Houserule Fallacy a.k.a. The Oberoni Fallacy
This fallacy states that if a flaw in game design can be houseruled away, it does not exist. You most often see this one in Wizard threads, where people will suggest limitations on Wizards as proof they are balanced, little realizing that by having to suggest limitations they are covertly admitting they are not balanced RAW.6. The Aesthetic Fallacy
This fallacy is less a flaw in logic and more a bad mindset. It basically states that it doesn't matter if a feature works as advertised, is balanced, and matches its fluff perfectly, if I don't like that fluff. This could also be termed the "Martials can't have nice things fallacy". Simply put, even if you could balance a system by making Monks work like guys in kung fu movies and Fighters work like heroes of legend, that's not acceptable because it doesn't match my internal aesthetic vision. People who make this fallacy will often make comments like "go play Exalted" or "thats weeaboo" when you throw it at them.7. The Mathematican's Fallacy
This fallacy is an assumption that all the problems of game design are ultimately the result of bad internal math. Examples of this fallacy are people trying to fix combat maneuvers and damage when balancing martials in 3.5/Pathfinder. As though that was their primary problem, and if you just balanced all the numbers, it would all be ok.8. The Party Ad-Hominem Fallacy
This fallacy, informally the "That Guy Fallacy" states that if you are having a problem with a system, game mechanic, or class feature, its because you or your fellow players are incompetent, actively malevolent, or both. This is obviously one of the most enraging fallacies, because it is firstly offered without proof, secondly very hard to disprove formally (because it amounts to having to testify to your own INNOCENCE instead of guilt), and lastly of course because its insulting your friends.
That actually looks pretty good and covers all the stuff pretty well, but number 5 should be properly called the Oberoni fallacy.
That actually looks pretty good and covers all the stuff pretty well, but number 5 should be properly called the Oberoni fallacy.
Added it to the OP.
As an addendum to #2, the game design issue that the fallacy is attempting to defend is the problem of ignoring the skill floor of a class. Even if the PF Monk had a Pun Pun build that outclassed everything in the game, the Monk's skill floor is so unreasonably high and building one is so unintuitive that it makes new players stop at the door before they can even hear about that build. If you're just someone playing their first d20 game and you want to make a character that punches things because that sounds cool you are simply not going to be able to do that effectively without considerable help from a senior play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Number 3, indeed, is a huge one. The "No True Roleplayer" is indeed a problem. I get that a lot. I play a bunch of RPGs ranging from Pathfinder, to D&D, to Saga Edition, to White Wolf, to Savage Worlds, to FATE, to Big Eyes Small Mouth, to M&M, to Forged, to...
Okay I have been gaming since I was 8 and am 34 now... I have played a lot of games...
Anyway, I can roleplay in any system... But I also like solid mechanics. I *love* roleplaying. It really REALLY makes me mad when someone who likes a rules-light setting bashes another game, like Pathfinder, or White Wolf, or whatever, because they don't like complex, or in-depth, rules systems by saying, "I don't like those because I like to roleplay." or "I like game X because I'm a roleplayer."
Nothing shoots my blood pressure up faster than hearing that. My response is always the same. "If you like games that are rules-light then say that you like games that are rules-light. Don't toss a passive aggressive comment around like that which basically insinuates that those people who do like those games don't roleplay."
There is no need for gamers to attack other gamers. We all grew up, well okay the older ones of us, probably the younger ones too, so sure, most of us grew up, being picked on, or at least mocked, for our hobby of gaming. That shared pain should unite us, not give us carte blanche to be passive aggressive jerks to one another because we like a burger with extra pickles and you like a burger sans pickles. At the end of the day we are all still eating burgers.
I am right there with you, been playing since primary school and I am in my mid 40's. Played a lot of systems and its a balance of quality of player/GM/system that makes a good game or bad game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting list. One is certainly my biggest personal pet peeve. I live realism, I don't want to have to play it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are these design fallancies? They are more Logic flaws in the Way we talk in here.
Interesting list. One is certainly my biggest personal pet peeve. I live realism, I don't want to have to play it.
I second that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are these design fallancies? They are more Logic flaws in the Way we talk in here.
Fallacies might not be the right word, but they are all design flaws, and the reasoning used to justify not-fixing the flaws is certainly fallacious.
Frex, the "Realism fallacy" is a major issue with tabletop wargaming. There's a Laffer-style curve of realism vs. number of people who are willing to play that game, which is pretty strong evidence of realism vs. fun. A tabletop wargame that's too unrealistic is not fun, but neither is one that's too realistic. If I remember right, Italian units in Campaign for North Africa need more water (to cook pasta). I've played other games where I had to keep track of literally every ship in the US Pacific Fleet from 1941-1944. Games like this teach you only why generals invented colonels. Saying "but it's _realistic_" doesn't mean it's fun or playable.
Similarly, if a house rule is needed, especially if it becomes a common house rule, it's because the people at those houses think it makes the game more fun. Since games are designed for fun, the absence of the rule is a design flaw.
Once I find a strategy that's overpoweringly unbalanced, the game is no longer fun for everyone else, and it gets boring for me quickly as well. Since games are designed for fun,....
Et cetera, et cetera, world without end, amen,....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I'd like to add to the discussion, if not the list, is the important notion that "Balance means symmetry," which is of course wrong.
While a lot of abstract games are symmetric (chess, checkers, dominoes, backgammon), most tabletop wargames, especially the simulations, are strongly asymmetric, reflecting the fact that war in the real world is usually asymmetric. One side is defending territory, one side is attacking it. One side has better units, one side has more units. If you're simulating Operation Market Garden, you don't expect the German side to be dropping paratroopers on the Allies, but you do expect a game that both the Allies and the Germans can win with roughly equal frequency, and that both sides will have fun playing. In a more sci-fi setting, Steve Jackson's Ogre is a very asymmetric game that is nevertheless a very fun game, and one that has been a strong seller for nearly forty years.
I recently saw a post by Stormwind regarding number 3, so here's two little tidbits that might or miggt not matter:
1) He actually doesn't like his name being attached to the fallacy, not that I can remember what name he would prefer instead.
2) The Stormwind (sorry, Stormwind) Fallacy only states that rollplaying well and roleplaying well are not mutually exclusive. It does not mean that people can and will roleplay and rollplay well. That is not a guaranteed outcome. Some people will rollplay well and not care about roleplaying. The opposite is true as well. Stormwing only says that those two possibilities are not the only ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The aesthetic fallacy makes me sad when it is due to racism.
No Asians/blacks/Arabs, or people like them in game or cultures anything like their cultures.
:''(
Interesting list. One is certainly my biggest personal pet peeve. I live realism, I don't want to have to play it.
Agreed, although the immensely restrictive nature of "you can't do this because it isn't realistic" is under threat by the many amazing things people can actually do. Not everyone is "normal" and the same (with their limitations) as the person shouting for realism - which must confound them to no end.
Interesting list. One is certainly my biggest personal pet peeve. I live realism, I don't want to have to play it.Agreed, although the immensely restrictive nature of "you can't do this because it isn't realistic" is under threat by the many amazing things people can actually do. Not everyone is "normal" and the same (with their limitations) as the person shouting for realism - which must confound them to no end.
A lot of people think "realism" means "everyman hero," not even "exceptional hero."
Frodo is realistic (well, except for the whole "hobbit" thing), Aragorn not so much,... but they're both more realistic than Gandalf, who in turn is much more realistic than Doctor Manhattan.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The aesthetic fallacy makes me sad when it is due to racism.
No Asians/blacks/Arabs, or people like them in game or cultures anything like their cultures.
I think that 'racism' is a very small part of it, and more of it is simply a "I don't like tunafish and jelly sandwiches." In a group that I used to play with, there was one player who absolutely had to play casters, and another player who absolutely had to play either anime catgirls or else elves. This made Boot Hill, Star Trek, or Flashing Blades a challenge to run.
"Are you not aware that we are never seen one without the others, and that we are called among the Musketeers and the Guards, at court and in the city, Athos, Porthos, and Galadriel, or the Three Inseparables?"
It is a small part of it, until you come across gamers that hate anything remotely Asian, thematically, racially and culturally. Then you have found a concentrated part.
For the player that must play catgirls you do the same thing for the player that wants to play elves in a setting with no elves, you firmly state there are no elves, catgirls, or elven catgirls. It isn't on the table.
However, there are elves in Star Trek. Catgirls would be female Caitians. I'm sorry, but here is the link: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Caitian
The aesthetic fallacy makes me sad when it is due to racism.
No Asians/blacks/Arabs, or people like them in game or cultures anything like their cultures.
I think that 'racism' is a very small part of it, and more of it is simply a "I don't like tunafish and jelly sandwiches." In a group that I used to play with, there was one player who absolutely had to play casters, and another player who absolutely had to play either anime catgirls or else elves. This made Boot Hill, Star Trek, or Flashing Blades a challenge to run.
"Are you not aware that we are never seen one without the others, and that we are called among the Musketeers and the Guards, at court and in the city, Athos, Porthos, and Galadriel, or the Three Inseparables?"
Thank you this is giving me an interesting idea for a cross genre game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The aesthetic fallacy makes me sad when it is due to racism.
No Asians/blacks/Arabs, or people like them in game or cultures anything like their cultures.
:''(
This fallacy makes gunslingers cry....
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of these fallacies seem to presuppose a heavily gamist design philosophy. Quite appropriate to pathfinder, but otherwise highly suspect.
The Aesthetic fallacy, applied to a discussion about World of Darkness games, which are primarily Aesthetic / Atmospheric games, would not be a fallacy.
Most of these fallacies seem to presuppose a heavily gamist design philosophy. Quite appropriate to pathfinder, but otherwise highly suspect.
The Aesthetic fallacy, applied to a discussion about World of Darkness games, which are primarily Aesthetic / Atmospheric games, would not be a fallacy.
It still would. Assuming you agree with the 3 design principles cited in the original thread. Which you should.
|
|
The third principle *is* the gamist philosophy in a nut shell. It is only a primary principle in a gamist system.
The other two are close approximations of the simulationist and narrativist philosophies, seen through gamist lenses.
For example, a game set in Medieval Europe, featuring PCs interacting across social strata, for example a duke and his knights and their squires, will *not* be balanced. The duke will probably be at least as good a fighter as his knights, and have more social power, and the squires will be weaker than either.
The game should be set up such that each can contribute, in different ways, but will not be balanced.
WoD, the combat system is sacrifices both balance and simulation in the name of letting people do cool stuff. Some cool stuff is more effective than other cool stuff. But since the presumption is that most WoD players are more interested in doing cool stuff, then as long as the different combat options are effective *enough* that is good enough. (Note that in their LARP system, which involves more player vs player, they rebalanced options to be more balanced.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unrefined thought here...
The Free Parking Fallacy
This fallacy refers to the notion that a game is poorly designed, when the perceived problem occurs as a result of using house rules. An example would be a GM who claims that the Stealth skill is poorly designed because opposed Stealth vs Perception rolls are too swingy, when that same GM disallows taking 10 on Stealth checks.
-Matt
I like this list a lot, especially #1, #2, #4 and #5. People use those arguments here all the time, and incessantly countering them is tiring.
I think #3 and #6 are perhaps a bit overstated, or anyway prone to misinterpretation.
#3- Stormwind Fallacy only says that rollplaying and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. While this is true, it does not mean that the two do not have a potentially hostile relationship to one another, and that's an important thing to bear in mind. There are ways in which poorly designed mechanics can incentivize or at least enable poor role-playing.
#6- People making the aesthetic complaint do actually have a point. D&D/Pathfinder is unclear about what aesthetic tradition it is attempting to simulate, but tries to position itself as a sort of "big tent" for lovers of all fantasy. This creates inherent tension between enthusiasts of different fantasy sub-genres that often bear little resemblance to one another. Actually, 5E has gone a long way towards resolving these tensions, but in PF they are still acute.
At most, in a WW2 wargame, there should be optional rules that give the Axis an equal chance to win.
Those are called "Victory Conditions". I recall one eastern front game where the Axis victory condition was "last longer than 1945".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun stuff. I'd suggest adding the:
It is Known Fallacy aka Everyone on the Forums Says so Fallacy
When asked to explain why something is the way it is, a person responds with "everyone knows it is true, just go look on the forums."
At most, in a WW2 wargame, there should be optional rules that give the Axis an equal chance to win.Those are called "Victory Conditions". I recall one eastern front game where the Axis victory condition was "last longer than 1945".
Germany invaded, crushed and wrapped up by 1942 (with the world war contained from spreading beyond Europe) was the best I could do. :D
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard many of these arguments over the years, complaining about game rules and advancing positions that I do not hold. So I am reluctant to grant them as postulates.
For example, the first rule there, about realism? Well, we are creating a fantasy world, yes, but that doesn't mean that "anything goes". Tolkein's Middle Earth has trolls, but day-to-day life in a hobbit community is analogous to day-to-day life in a medieval agrarian community in England. With lower shelves in the kitchens, and fewer cobblers.
If a campaign world is to make sense at all, it starts with the real world and adds some magic and some cinematic adventure, and proceeds to develop along those lines. I think that most people who assert a fantasy world needs to be "realistic" are requesting that it be internally consistent, rather than it be historically accurate.
Here's a couple of rules I'd like to add:
Recipes are Not Food -- The game involves friends sitting around a table, telling stories. The rulebook, and the dice, are tools to that end. Rulesets that inspire great stories and fun times around a table are better than those that don't. Since different people like different things, this can mean that a ruleset is better among some people than others.
Corollary: Discussing recipes can be fun, too. But it's important to keep the two in perspective. There are rulesets that, as written, are *terrible*, but evoke the spirit of a game that generate great times. (Amber, I'm looking at you.)
I am reminded of this when people spend any amount of time at all talking about the relative merits of Pathfinder PCs at 18th - 20th Level.
Another Corollary: Play is rarely set in featureless planes. Balance depends on context. One of the most important things that I learned from essays in game design is that players use their characters to vote on how they want to see the campaign develop. As a simple example, a player indicates a direction she wants to go by filling her character's skill ranks with Profession: Sailor. A PFS group that plays Investigators, Bards, and Rogues is voting for a different style of campaign than one which chooses Warpriests, Barbarians, and Magi.
The extent to which one mechanical choice contributes to the game (or dominates other choices) depends on how strongly the GM is willing to accommodate those votes.
Voltron's Right Arm -- Don't make class or race comparisons a competition. When the Enterprise gets in a space combat, Sulu is getting more hits in against the enemy ships than Scotty or Bones, but that doesn't mean he's a Tier 1 crew member.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the "recipes are not food" metaphor. Nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Because dragons"
The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.
In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.
The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.
In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Because dragons"
The false idea that because one fantastic element exists, therefore all fantastic elements must exist and no attempt at realism or verisimilitude whatsoever should be made.
In other words an idea that a game is either 'checkbooks and cubicles". Or "everything fantastic' with no room in between.
The problem with this as a fallacy is that the person declaring the fallacy is insisting that their judgement of where to draw the line separating fantasy from realism is the only judgement that counts.
In other words, it isn't a fallacy so much as a difference in opinion.
Not really? Only declaration is that one fantastic element existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements are required to be fantastic as well, and that in and of itself fantastic elements existing has no direct bearing on whether other elements should be 'realistic' game elements.
In other words. It's insisting that the line isn't immediately drawn on the far side of the field as soon as the first dragon shows up.
Your statement doesn't disprove mine. You're still showing that the one calling fallacy in actuality disagrees about the placement of the line.
It is not illogical to assume that a world not bound by our laws of reality might have unrealistic things. The point of contention is the degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stormwind fallacy is often used as a strawman. It ONLY applies when a player says "you cannot optimise and roleplay well." as a generalization.
It does not apply to all criticisms of orpimisation from a roleplaying perspective, i.e. it is possible for a optimizer to make choices for purely mechanical reasons which are damaging to the fiction of the game, and/or play style of the table.
The best example of this the hypothetical guy who sits down at a table after being told that it is going to be a street level urban adventure about flawed individuals caught up by circumstance, that characters should be built so as to be naturalistic, and then builds the worlds greatest swordsman and claims that it is all good because his character is a rat catcher. Such behaviour is disruptive both because it is difficult to square a guy who mechanically is the worlds greatest swordsman with his background of being a ratcatcher, and b, because the hyperoptimised character is on a completely different power level compared to the naturalisticly built generalists.
I am writing this as I read, so I haven't read all replies yet.
1 When players have a problem with realism, it usually isn't realism, but rather association they have a problem with.
Associated mechanics are when the player making a choice is directly linked to the character making the same choice. For example, if the player decides to use fireball, the character decided to use fireball. But if there are minions around 4e style, and the player changes tactics solely based on their being minions, that isn't directly related to the character, because the character has no concept of minions and there is no relation or satisfactory explanation for the minions special minion abilities.
See thus article: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mec hanics-a-brief-primer
3 While it is theoretically possible to both deeply roleplay and min max, I've never seen it done well (I've seen a few attempts though). Mostly I see min maxers that meta game a decision then wrap a hint of fluff around it, or the rp only comes in the execution of metagame choices, this as opposed to many roleplayers who do what their character would do even if it isn't the best action from a metagame perspective.
That can make feel like this fallacy is true sometimes. Of course I could just be unlucky in gaming buddies.
4 I think this fallacy is based on another fallacy.
It is rather fallicious to believe that game problems are always objective problems with the system. I.E. the toughness feat is said to be too weak to be a feat, but generally that ignores the idea of a quick and short 1st lvl game, where the feat is no longer as weak as it seems when looking at it from the expectation of the character existing for twenty levels.
Add a fallicy, the Balance Fallicy
Mechanical balance isn't truly possible. Even chess suffers from an imbalance (two actually, players and the fact that one side goes first). So long as there are multiple players, there will not be balance. I've taken characters that had been complained about as weak and underpowered and saved the minmaxed character's life, because I used better tactics and creative thinking.
That said, you can get a vague near equality, but in my opinion, people put to much effort into striving for mechanical balance while ignoring the single biggest unbalancing factor, players.
The biggest issue I have is how some people seem to assume that all character options must be equally powerful. If the game is designed to have imbalances, it really is a feature, not a bug.
I certainly agree. Assuming that the game states upfront that it's designed to be imbalanced. For example, Pathfinder claims to be balanced but it's often very unbalanced (or at least makes no attempt to inform you that it isn't balanced). Ars Magica, on the other hand, is very unbalanced and tells you right at the beginning of character creation that it's not balanced.
Doesn't help that there are different kinds of balance, and each person will have different ideas about what each kind means. I.E. spotlight balance is very different from combat balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Because dragons" is one of those arguments that can be used rightly or wrongly depending on the context.
Silly arguments:
"There's no rule that says dead characters can't act. And in a world with dragons, there's no reason my character shouldn't be able to continue to fight normally after his head was cut off."
Reasonable arguments:
"If there's enough of a food chain to support trolls, ogres, and breeding populations of dozens of different types of dragons, shouldn't there also be enough room for T-Rexes in the world?"
Matter of taste arguments:
"There are dragons who can fly, therefore gravity is different, therefore it's perfectly reasonable for my hero to fall off a cliff onto pointy rocks and walk away." In a D&D game? Maybe. In Game of Thrones? No.