Obvious Rule Patch: What constitutes it?

Is Obvious Rule Patch one of the following:

• A patch note that's obviously fixes an exploit but is not obvious to someone who plays the game later (who might not be aware at all that the game's rules have been patched).
• A rule to counter some exploit before that sticks out like a sore thumb even to newcomers.
• A rule to counter a specific strategy that was already there from the beginning.

Edited by artman40 on Apr 14th 2024 at 3:44:31 AM

Basically, it's a rule, change to game play, errata, whatever that was created to counteract a specific form of Loophole Abuse, and often targeted at a specific person. For example:

• In Bofuri: I Don't Want to Get Hurt, so I'll Max Out My Defense., the dev team of the virtual reality MMORPG ends up doing a bunch of patches specifically targeted at main character Maple because she keeps accidentally finding Game-Breaker exploits. For example, early on she's basically indestructible, so they change the way damage is calculated to introduce Scratch Damage and also add Armor Piercing Attacks.
• IRL, the organizers of the Czech national singing competition Cesky Slavik decided to add a rule that entrants had to actually be based in the Czech Republic after Joakim Brodén, the half-Czech lead vocalist of Swedish power metal band Sabaton, came in fifth place one year.

Edited by StarSword on Apr 14th 2024 at 12:39:15 PM

Thanks!

What are some examples that are not Obvious Rule Patches?

one which would spring to mind would be the example from Pokemon referring to Psychic types in Gen 1 being broken. More specifically, the issue with Ghost types being ineffective due to a programming error at the time, then getting fixed in Gen 2 is not a rule patch as such as it was intended to be that way from Day 1. On a similar note, while some types are introduced with the primary goal of countering one specific type, those types are usually also added in to encourage use of other types (Fairy for instance - while it mainly counters Dragons, it also encourages more use of Steel and Poison type moves), so I wouldn't classify them as obvious rule patches since they're aimed at multiple scenarios rather than one.

There are better examples of obvious rule patches for Pokemon (Shadow Tag/Arena Trap being nullified if both Pokemon have it, Dark Void being changed so that only Darkrai and no other Pokemon can use it etc) so this one really sticks out.

Edited by fireheart on Apr 14th 2024 at 4:46:28 AM

Understanding the trope is basically understanding the relationship between the Metagame (reviewing all possible interactions between gameplay aspects) and the Munchkin (the one searching for every exploit and weird combination possible to find a Game-Breaker). The Obvious Rule Patch is when there is an interaction that harms the intention of the game mechanic (positive or negative) and so it has to be fixed after release or there is a clear late-development add-on that cancels out the issue. An example would be a mechanic that's designed to be a Anti-Magic ability that impacts everyone but the mechanic itself is magical in nature, so the spell cancels itself out or creates a weird Logic Bomb that can't be resolved. Thus it's an issue until a fix is made adding "Universal Except Itself" to the mechanic. Card games especially have what they call Errata, which supersedes what is written on the card and may be included on new releases.

What doesn't count is a straightforward Nerf (damage reduced from 100 to 45) or that the mistake was an actual glitch that got repaired (a clipping zone that made you invulnerable to enemy attacks).

Edited by EmeraldSource on Apr 14th 2024 at 5:47:46 AM

My interpretation is that the "obvious" in Obvious Rules Patch refers to the fact that it is a rule whose purpose is obviously just to patch some specific exploit - that is, a rule that, when you read it, makes you go "ah, this must have been a response to a specific exploit.

That said, I've squinted at the trope before. It's a slightly YMMV-ish trope in that the obviousness is going to be subjective and it's pretty rare for there to be any clear-cut Word of God.

Here's a helpful thought that might help us determine if it's an actual trope and, if not, what we'd look for to prove that there's a problem:

Imagine a supertrope to this, a generic "Rules Patch" trope that covers all changes to the rules of all sorts. What would distinguish a Rules Patch from an Obvious Rules Patch? Or is there no distinction and this trope is really just any rule intended as a patch?

In the latter case, the hypothetical supertrope would be "rules change" or something - what distinguishes an Obvious Rules Patch from a generic Rules Change?

Once we have that nailed down we can do a wick check to see if examples fail to distinguish themselves from the more generic case.

The difference I would see between a general rule patch and an obvious rules patch is that a general rule patch would not necessarily be addressing one specific scenario or person or may be patched with the goal of encouraging different ways of participating (some of the various tweaks to The Amazing Race mechanics are a good example of this eg the Roadblocks being split). Basically there's no clear defining incident which resulted in that rule change or there was a regular pattern which resulted in that rule change being put into effect.

An obvious rule patch however, would be aimed at one overly specific scenario that has already occurred and they don't want to have happen again. (using The Amazing Race again, the rule where any selling challenge has a minimum price point came about because one team kept selling the items in said challenge for stupidly low prices)

• Rules Change: Any change in the rules.
• Rules Patch: A Rules Change targeting a specific loophole, player, or play, or cleaning up an ambiguity in the rules. Basically, what fireheart describes as a "general rules patch" is what a rules change that's not a rules patch looks like.
• Obvious Rules Patch: A rules change that is obviously a rules patch.

Now, the problem with this is twofold. First, and most basically, "obviousness" is inherently YMMV, but it's also not clear that "obvious" is adding anything and in practice it would probably list rules patches of all kinds. Perhaps a non-obvious rules patch would be something cleaning up something that doesn't actually happen, or at least isn't well-known as actually happening, but could conceivably happen - basically, something that could plausibly be considered a non-patch rules change. But it's not clear that that's a distinction worth drawing when it comes to adding examples. Basically, if you can point out a specific situation that the change is targeting, it's probably worth listing.

Edited by MorganWick on Apr 16th 2024 at 4:40:29 AM