Brilliant Gameologists

Warm-Up:

Each time we record, we watch a video or find a picture to get us in the mood for the episode. It doesn’t always have anything to do with the episode, but frames our minds, so we’re going to share so you can be appropriately framed as well.

• Probably the Funniest Cat Video You’ll Ever See –Hilarious. Thanks to Dan2 on our boards for linking it in this thread!

News:

• Couple of days left for the Secret Code Contest! Get your entries in by October 17th!
• We make an apology of sorts for one of the items listed in the “7 Things We Hate” episode.
• JiffyCon! We meant to have a news item about this and … oops. But at least it’s written! JiffyCon is almost here- we’re still looking for another GM or two, specializing in little known or Indie Games, and of course would love to see anyone who can make it to come! We’ll help you… nay… guarantee you’ll have a good time!

Icebreaker:

• Josh went to Providence Anime Conference and rubs it in our face. Won some cool (and sexy) prizes including one for being voted “Biggest Whore”

Douchebag of the Week:

• The Sycophant

Main Topic:

Rule Zero

• Rule 0 etymology and definition
• Oberoni Fallacy
• House Rules used to mean:
  • Game Design
  • Modding
  • World Building
  • House Rules
• Corner Cases
• Fudging Rolls
• GM= God?
• Cows… From… Space!

Commercial Break

The Brilliant Gameologists’ Message Boards are sure to cure whatever ails you!  Did you know we have areas for:

• Talking about the Show including giving ideas for future episodes
• Off-Topic Fun (including Media, Cons, and politics)
• Min/Maxing!
• Non- RPG tabletop games
• Mature Topics
• Play by Post

Almost better than Porn!

Random Plugs:

Oberoni Fallacy- as originally stated:

Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board 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.

Reminders-

We put show updates and random goodies on Meg’s Twitter. Don’t miss out!

Email us at GM@BrilliantGameologists.com

Discuss this episode on our Message Boards in THIS thread!

Warning: This episode is tagged Explicit and is Not Work Safe. It is intended for adult audiences.

Listen Now:

 Standard Podcasts [59:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (1338)