The Culture: Boomerism In Game Design

The Professor thought he was being slick. He wasn't.

The consequences of Muh Rule Zero includes enshrining the tyranny of the incompetent and malevolent, usually via Referee incompetence or neglect.

And now Synnibarr's infamous rule makes sense. https://t.co/olRXN2dkBz

— Bradford C. Walker (@MrBCWalker) January 26, 2025

What is that infamous rule? As Brave's bot explained:

In the context of the game Synnibarr, “calling Fate” refers to a mechanic where a player can dispute a ruling made by the game master (GM), also known as “Fate”. If the player challenges Fate and is found to be absolutely correct, they may receive double gaming points (XP) for the entire adventure. This mechanic is seen as a way to empower players and hold the GM accountable for their rulings. However, it has also been criticized for potentially leading to arguments and disrupting the flow of the game. The “calling Fate” mechanic is unique to Synnibarr and reflects the game’s focus on player power and agency.

I'd always wondered why McCracken put that into the game. I should have gone with the obvious conclusion: he'd been abused for years by people willfully fucking with the rules to fuck him over.

The insistence upon proper play requiring Rules As Written includes that the Referee abide by those same rules at all times.

"But-"

Know. Your. Shit. If you don't know what you're doing, don't sit in the Big Chair. If you fuck up, you're better off taking the time to correct on the spot than to let it ride; this isn't theater, you're not a director, and players have to rely on the rules to be able to play effectively.

This is more than just avoiding the violation of player agency. It is avoiding abuse by others for advantage, which is what Professor Retard's post inevitably leads to.

"But that's-"

Yes, it will go there. How can I say that? Oh, how about experiecing exactly that for decades on end? This is incompetent game design; you always work to avoid unintended results of applying your rules and procedures, and while the Professor may be a saint he is one man and his game will find itself in the hands of many others who are not. It is the excuse of the incompetent and irresponsible to excuse their failure to execute their Duty of Care to the end-user.

"The rules are what I say they are" leads to that abuse, and the Professor's rule is nothing more than Carte Blanche to engage in unfettered abuse. Rules will be conveniently forgotten, willfully misread, and shamelessly misapplied to create advantage where none ought to exist; this is cheating and it cannot be tolerated. Because they can be changed at whim, players cannot exercise their agency because they cannot know what the results of their actions ought to be given what their man has at their disposal.

I wouldn't blame anyone that just shot a fucker dead for doing that shit, and I wouldn't convict them if I were on a jury. That's how big a deal this error really is, but most folks will not grok it until they have it smeared in their faces in the most public of humiliations possible.

Fucking retarded idea by a fucking retard. Once again, we see that most people are not up to the job.

One of the many reasons Vidya overtook Tabletop is due to dogshit ideas being enshrined into products like this. Code and graphics don't abuse you by rug-pulling you. Tabletop doesn't deserve to survive if it cannot do the same.