I still don't see how this sets up the GM in some role that contrasts with "the rules guy". What contribution does it make to the game that we have multiple rather baroque options for determining whether or not someone slips on ice?
The DM is always the "rules guy", whether it is the RAW or the ones of his own creation. I wished to engage into discussion if there has been an official point shift as well as at the table application regarding uniform consistency of the rules.
From the intro to 2e DM:
"Choice is what the AD&D game is all about. We tried to offer you what we think are
the best choices for your AD&D campaign, but each of us has different likes and
dislikes. the game that I enjoy may be quite different from your own
campaign. But is not up to me to say what is wrong or right for your game
...
Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about
each piddly little detail. If you cannot figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP!
And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete.
They are not. you cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take
the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.
...
I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of game rules. More often then not,
I come back with a question -what do you feel is right? And the people asking
the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but their answer is as good
as anyone else's. The rules are just guidelines."
I do not remember seeing anything contradictory in the following editions rules, in the same time I neither remember this view being so explicitly reiterated since.
Edit: From 3e DMG p11:
"Every rule in the PHB is written for a reason. That doesn't mean you cannot change them for your game
...
Given the creativity of gamers, almost every campaign will in time, develop its own house rules.
...
changing the way the game does something shouldn't be taken lightly.
...
(pp 15) Mastery of the rules is one reason why the DM is sometimes called the referee.
"
My apologies, I do not have my core 4e books at hands. May be somebody will be willing to provide a better examples. All I can find was from the Rules Compendium :
"(pp9) Referee:The Dm decides how to aplly the game rules and guides the story.
If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story."
To me the progression in the rules modification advice (from those excerpts) seems to be "Change the rules as you will, experiment.",
"Change the rules with extreme caution", "Do not change the rules, fudge to get the desired result". None is wrong or right, but I do feel there is a definite change.
When I read people obsessing about the latest errata or telling others that by not following the RAW they are committing a sin I start to wander: Have I become a minority, which only cares about having fun with some friends?