New Fallacy - splatbooks are overpowered

[ImperatorK]

I don't know if there's already such a fallacy. What I mean is something that I see quite often. People insist (or just don't yet know) that Core is good and that the splatbooks introduce powercreep.
Yes, newer handbooks gave more potent material to use, but we know that Core is the most unbalanced part of D&D, it introduces the basic imbalance - Mundanes < Casters - and such truth like the tier system.
What would you call and how would you formulate this fallacy to make it more... "professional" (like for example the Stormwind Fallacy or the Oberoni Fallacy)?

[Sinfire Titan]

That isn't so much a new fallacy as it is a specific instance of a fallacy (largely an appeal to tradition fallacy, but it is mixed with elements of other fallacies).

People who claim "Core is balanced" usually do not have the degree of system mastery required to see the issues Core presents. It's problematic to deal with them because it requires teaching them how to optimize without slapping them in the face with the broken parts. Simply throwing an optimized Druid into a Core Only group can cause you to become a scapegoat instead of teaching them what is wrong with Core. When that happens, they start to scrutinize your actions and characters until you become uncomfortable playing in their game.

The proper way to deal with this is to show them that the developers of the game didn't understand what system mastery was. I still remember when 4E was in preview mode, one of the devs stated that Wizards would be focused on using battlefield control. I thought they had finally learned until TreantMonk highlighted a quote within the article that called Meteor Swarm the "penultimate battlefield control spell" (in reference to 3.5, not 4E). That quote highlighted that particular dev's lack of system mastery.

[Whisper]

The problem with splatbooks is not that they are overpowered, but that they are additive fixes to core. What core really needs are subtractive fixes... taking the broken stuff out.

All you can do with an additive fix is to introduce more overpowered stuff, to balance out the first set of overpowered stuff. But then you are left with a system that is more balanced, but also more broken.

One has to understand that D&D is what it is not because of all the bogus backwards rationales about design considerations that get thrown around (these are pretty much all lies), but because it began as the ultimate exercise in plagiarism. Nearly every single thing that Gygax & co. found in the pages of myth, legend, or fantasy fiction, made its way into the pages of first edition. But all this stuff wasn't made to coexist. How is a Tolkien-style overland quest supposed to happen in a world with Arabian Nights flying carpets and other ubermagic?

Example:

Why is there a wish spell? Because there is a ring of three wishes. And why is there that? Because Arabian Nights. Why is the wish spell ninth level? Because long before epic spells, that was the highest level a spell could be.

So you end up with a situation where Meteor Swarm is a balanced ninth level blasting spell, but it costs the same as the ability to shape reality any way you like.

Because you had to have everything.

There can't *be* a workable "world of every fantasy story". Because in that world, Anisurimbor Kelhus burns Conan into a small pile of ashes on the first day, and then Odin chains him to a rock for eternity in the freezing depths of hell. And in the "universe of every science fiction story", you never get to have your great Federation vs. Galactic Empire clash, because two Culture GCUs* show up and make everyone play nice, whether they want to or not.

You can't just plug different stories into each other, because they all have different notions of the possible.

A long time ago, D&D reached the point where it needed to decide whether it was to be an Arabian Nights universe of superpowered magic, with every player character a caster of some kind, or a Conan-and-Tolkien universe of brave heroes riding around on horseback, shooting bows, etc... perhaps accompanied by the occasional bone-casting, storm-calling, and even fire-throwing wizard, who cannot fly, talk to the gods, create universes, or bend time... because magic has its limits, too.

And D&D refused to make that decision.



* The It's My Ball and You Can't Play, and the Yet Another Gravitas Joke, respectively.

[veekie]

Subtractive fixes also have a problem though. You'd need a new core regularly to consolidate the fixes, or you can end with uneven fix application(not every player would have every book, even those who download all their books).

What can help is to have effective 'anchors' for power level of everything. Make it explicit the types of effects you can expect for spells(by spell levels and for each type of caster), feats(by prerequisites), magic items(by caster level and value), etc.

[oslecamo]

You can't just plug different stories into each other, because they all have different notions of the possible.

A long time ago, D&D reached the point where it needed to decide whether it was to be an Arabian Nights universe of superpowered magic, with every player character a caster of some kind, or a Conan-and-Tolkien universe of brave heroes riding around on horseback, shooting bows, etc... perhaps accompanied by the occasional bone-casting, storm-calling, and even fire-throwing wizard, who cannot fly, talk to the gods, create universes, or bend time... because magic has its limits, too.

And D&D refused to make that decision.

You think D&D is bad on that deparment? Then Warhammer 40K would like a talk with you. It's a setting where you can perfectly expect powered armored mutants with explosive machine guns and space ships to face with pre-historic neandertals with wooden spears. Where the spanish inquisition with killer nuns faces drug-crazed space elves. Where WW I armies roll out against orcks. Where human infantry may as well be riding regular horses, hover bikes or segways. Where undead robots face against daemons. And either of those battles can go either way.

And no matter how nonsensical that setting is, no matter how unbalanced the rules are to the point some choices are never taken and others are autopicks, 40K is still extremely popular because lots of people precisely love that kind of crazy mash-up.

[ImperatorK]

So what are you saying? We can't formulate a new fallacy?

[InnaBinder]

So what are you saying? We can't formulate a new fallacy?

I suspect that we can, but this isn't it, because - as SiFir indicated - this isn't new.

[ImperatorK]

But why does it matter that it's not new? I'm just saying "Lets formulate it". Don't get so hung up on the word "new".
It is a general fallacy, but I'm talking about something more specific. Strictly D&D. Because if I say "Hey, you're invoking Appeal to Tradition Fallacy" the guy might not get how this is relevant. But if I say "Hey, you're invoking the... Giacomo Fallacy" and give a link to it, he should understand, because it will be talking specifically about D&D. YouknowwhatI'msaying?

[oslecamo]

Why don't simply link them to the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy? People are always throwing slippery slope/strawman/whatever in forum discussions. No need to degenerate into tvtropes level where aparently you need a dozen fancy names just to describe one thing.

[veekie]

^^
Yeah, its Appeal to Tradition, introduce them to the fallacy while you're at it.

[ImperatorK]

I know I can link to that fallacy, but the guy might not understand what it has to do with D&D. There are idiots in the world, you know?

[InnaBinder]

I know I can link to that fallacy, but the guy might not understand what it has to do with D&D. There are idiots in the world, you know?

Can you explain why you think they'd not understand that fallacy, specifically, while understanding others - like Strawman - that aren't specific to D&D?

[ImperatorK]

I know I can link to that fallacy, but the guy might not understand what it has to do with D&D. There are idiots in the world, you know?

Can you explain why you think they'd not understand that fallacy, specifically, while understanding others - like Strawman - that aren't specific to D&D?

"The new splatbooks are overpowered and introduce power-creep into the game."
How does the fallacy explain to me that this actually isn't true?

Strawman is about arguments. False arguments. It has nothing to do with D&D. D&D is just the topic of the argument.

Oh. And while I'm at it: Is there a fallacy that could be invoked when saying "Multiclassed characters are overpowered"? Because that's also something I see often.

[oslecamo]

I know I can link to that fallacy, but the guy might not understand what it has to do with D&D. There are idiots in the world, you know?

Can you explain why you think they'd not understand that fallacy, specifically, while understanding others - like Strawman - that aren't specific to D&D?

"The new splatbooks are overpowered and introduce power-creep into the game."
How does the fallacy explain to me that this actually isn't true?

Because it's partialy true. Planar Sheperd. Artificer. Incantrix. Sharrukh. Magedbred Warbeast animal companions. The list goes on. There's plenty of power creep in splatbooks.

There's a reason why even experienced DMs are wary of allowing Forgoten Realms and Eberron splats at will

[ImperatorK]

It doesn't mean that splats are overpowered.

[veekie]

It means you cannot summarily call that statement untrue. Every supplement adds to something's power, if not in depth, then at least in breadth. "Core is balanced" can be proven false. "Splats are overpowered" cannot be proven false, unless you prefix it to be "All splats are overpowered"

[RobbyPants]

What would you call and how would you formulate this fallacy to make it more... "professional" (like for example the Stormwind Fallacy or the Oberoni Fallacy)?

It's a fairly strong example of cherry picking, where they pick some balanced aspects of core and compare them to unbalanced aspects of splat books.

This can also be related to selection bias and spotlight fallacy.

[ImperatorK]

A couple of books that have one or two overpowered things, mean that splats are overpowered?

Seriously. I might got the statement wrong, but do you really not understand what I'm saying?
People are saying " Ban splats if you want balance". Yes, you can prove that Core is unbalanced. But it won't prove that splats aren't unbalanced. A couple overpowered things in hundred books don't make it so.

It's a fairly strong example of cherry picking, where they pick some balanced aspects of core and compare them to unbalanced aspects of splat books.

This can also be related to selection bias and spotlight fallacy.

Too general.

[RobbyPants]

People are saying " Ban splats if you want balance". Yes, you can prove that Core is unbalanced. But it won't prove that splats aren't unbalanced. A couple overpowered things in hundred books don't make it so.

I think Veekie has a point, though. Any given splat book contains overpowered, underpowered, and well-balanced material. So, if you allow in the overpowered things in that book, then, for all intents and purposes, allowing it is overpowered (at least potentially).

Each book, core and not is OP, UP, and balanced. The net result is whatever people take from it.

It's a fairly strong example of cherry picking, where they pick some balanced aspects of core and compare them to unbalanced aspects of splat books.

This can also be related to selection bias and spotlight fallacy.

Too general.

I don't know that I have a good name for it. The behavior used when engaged in these debates does seem to be cherry picking. The "Core is Balanced Fallacy" seems sort of long-winded to me.

[kurashu]

But why does it matter that it's not new? I'm just saying "Lets formulate it". Don't get so hung up on the word "new".
It is a general fallacy, but I'm talking about something more specific. Strictly D&D. Because if I say "Hey, you're invoking Appeal to Tradition Fallacy" the guy might not get how this is relevant. But if I say "Hey, you're invoking the... Giacomo Fallacy" and give a link to it, he should understand, because it will be talking specifically about D&D. YouknowwhatI'msaying?

I think a better question to ask is why do we need to make a TvTropes entry for this? Instead of just saying, "Splatbooks may or may not be unbalancing." Not everything needs to be shoved into a tiny little box with a neat label on it.