Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6773767" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Rule Zero says that the DM can change rules. Rulings-Not-Rules says that the DM is in charge of interpreting, whenever the rules aren't clear. When Rulings-Not-Rules is in effect, you don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything.For you, it seems like the Object Interaction rules are clear, and changing them would require Rule Zero.For me, I'm claiming that there is some ambiguity within the Object Interaction rules, but I don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything because I have Rulings-Not-Rules to justify my interpretation.The thing is, you cannot unilaterally declare that a statement is unambiguous. All it takes is a single counter-example to prove that it's not clear. I disagree with your interpretation, therefore ambiguity exists, and my interpretation becomes the RAW at my table because that's the definition of Rulings-Not-Rules. Your interpretation becomes RAW at your table, because of your own implementation of Rulings-Not-Rules, and neither of us is more correct than the other.TLDR: The RAW and RAI of 5E is that the DM rules whenever things are ambiguous, because it's a pain to write/implement a ruleset that is completely unambiguous. The fact that you can I can disagree on a rule means that the rule is definitionally ambiguous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6773767, member: 6775031"] Rule Zero says that the DM can change rules. Rulings-Not-Rules says that the DM is in charge of interpreting, whenever the rules aren't clear. When Rulings-Not-Rules is in effect, you don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything. For you, it seems like the Object Interaction rules are clear, and changing them would require Rule Zero. For me, I'm claiming that there is [I]some[/I] ambiguity within the Object Interaction rules, but I don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything because I have Rulings-Not-Rules to justify my interpretation. The thing is, [I]you[/I] cannot unilaterally declare that a statement is unambiguous. All it takes is a single counter-example to prove that it's not clear. [I]I[/I] disagree with your interpretation, therefore ambiguity exists, and my interpretation becomes the RAW at my table because that's the definition of Rulings-Not-Rules. Your interpretation becomes RAW at your table, because of your own implementation of Rulings-Not-Rules, and neither of us is more correct than the other. TLDR: The RAW and RAI of 5E is that the DM rules whenever things are ambiguous, because it's a pain to write/implement a ruleset that is completely unambiguous. The fact that you can I can disagree on a rule means that the rule is definitionally ambiguous. [/QUOTE]

Verification