blatant misuse (especially in game show articles): Obvious Rule Patch

The trope Obvious Rule Patch is described, in relation to the existence of a Game-Breaker, as "a completely arbitrary rule that forcibly prevents the particular interaction from happening, while having as little effect on other rules as possible."

In game show articles, it appears to be used in a completely different sense that does not fit the trope: as a flaw in the rules that obviously needed to be patched (and was), regardless of whether there was a Game-Breaker strategy the rule is narrowly tailored to one specific problem.

Examples of misuse:

Merv Griffins Crosswords: "The ousting of the Crossword Getaway, which removed the two "shelves" from the front-row podiums"—just a run-of-the-mill rule change Jeopardy: the only rules that appear to fit the trope is the initial lockout (to prevent players from holding down the button) and the "wait until the question is finished before buzzing" rule (to prevent the Game-Breaker strategy of buzzing in as soon as the clue is revealed, and even this use is borderline). The exact phrasing rule was simply a bad rule that the producers decided to scrap and not an Obvious Rule Patch; likewise for writing "Who" or "What" before Final Jeopardy! Ive Got A Secret: neither rule change fits, as there was no game breaker; it was simply a show adjusting its rules to make for better television, as opposed to breaking an unintended winning strategy Greed: neither is an obvious rule patch; the first was a rule change to prevent bad television (not to specifically nerf a strategy) while the second could not possibly fit the trope High Rollers: does not fit the trope at all

I could go on and on, but it is clear that this trope is being misused. I would suggest renaming the trope to Arbitrary Rule Patch to emphasize that the rule change is specifically designed to nerf a particular Game-Breaker and prevent the confusion that the trope might refer to any rule change whatsoever (as illustrated above).

Wow, most of the Reality Tv examples are bad as well.

But if we want to make it clear that rules changes that aren't designed to get rid of gamebreakers are the only ones that are examples, "Arbitrary Rules Patch" won't be any better; it will be worse: that will make it sound like it's any rules change made for any reason.

Arbitrary Rule Patch is much more misleading because it directly implies that there's no reason behind the patch. I think the "Obvious" part of the name is meant to be imply how something duct-taped together was obviously broken: no effort was made to make the repaired state look more natural. The patch should be obvious looking only at the finished product, knowing nothing of its history.

edited 18th Apr '11 10:04:29 PM by Clarste

I like Obvious Rule Patch but also think there's been quite a bit of abuse with it. People just keep using it for any old Rule Patch, which I do not think there is a page for.

The litmus test should be that in conjunction with the other rules it 1) LOOKS overly specific compared to the other rules, and 2) was introduced to fix a giant hole in the original rules, usually in reaction to something. I don't think it has to be a full-on Game-Breaker, because rule patches are introduced for all sorts of reasons.

Suspiciously Specific Rules Patch? I think the analogy with Suspiciously Specific Denial works.

^^ I agree ^^