Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

Mister Ed · 12-09-2014, 04:07 PM

I always thought it was clear that the "owner has the last word" clause was supposed to be for cases where the ruling isn't clear. It isn't supposed to give free reign to the owner to tweak any and all rules to his/her liking, no matter how clear they are. ESPECIALLY not on-the-fly as the game is in progress.

That said, the owner of the game is obviously free to set any "house rules" they like up front, before the game starts. But, just as obviously, if they choose to create and insist on "house rules" that nobody but them likes, then they should rapidly run out of players for their games. And if anybody is being a "baby" in that scenario, I'd be inclined to point to the ones that insist on changing the rules of the game to suit their own whims. But perhaps that's just me.

12-09-2014, 04:07 PM	#2
Mister Ed Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Portland, Oregon	Re: Two "owners" both abusing the rule? I always thought it was clear that the "owner has the last word" clause was supposed to be for cases where the ruling isn't clear. It isn't supposed to give free reign to the owner to tweak any and all rules to his/her liking, no matter how clear they are. ESPECIALLY not on-the-fly as the game is in progress. That said, the owner of the game is obviously free to set any "house rules" they like up front, before the game starts. But, just as obviously, if they choose to create and insist on "house rules" that nobody but them likes, then they should rapidly run out of players for their games. And if anybody is being a "baby" in that scenario, I'd be inclined to point to the ones that insist on changing the rules of the game to suit their own whims. But perhaps that's just me.