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

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.”

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.

“Don’t like the food you were served? Just go back to the kitchen and make your own.”