Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9547680" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Oh, there are things you refuse to discuss? Like I keep saying? Like you keep claiming are false accusations, groundless and baseless?Okay then. So, someone can hold the title of DM and NOT be the final authority on all things Dungeons and Dragons. We agree then. I'm not arguing what you Oofta do, I'm arguing what is definitionally possible. It is possible for the DM to not be the final authority on a rules decision, because someone else is who they listen to. Which you just admitted is a possibility but is not how the game has been described in the books for the last half century. So we have two possible ways to do it. One where the DM is the Final Authority, and one where they are not.Right but I've never been discussing whether or not a roll has advantage or what number a DC is. That has never been the character of the rules discussion I've engaged in. So of your three categories, it seems I've been discussing one of them. And, to make another point, since we agree that a 3rd party can be the Final Authority of a rules decision is a DM obeys their rule decisions, then in regards to world building it is very possible for the author of a book to be the final authority on a setting. Yes, you Oofta run a homebrew world over which you demand final authority status over, but the role of a DM does not inherently require that, when a DM can reference various setting books and authors as the final authority of the world they are running. So while being the Final Authority may be a factor of how YOU run games, it is not an inherent truism for all DMs at all tables for all time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9547680, member: 6801228"] Oh, there are things you refuse to discuss? Like I keep saying? Like you keep claiming are false accusations, groundless and baseless? Okay then. So, someone can hold the title of DM and NOT be the final authority on all things Dungeons and Dragons. We agree then. I'm not arguing what you Oofta do, I'm arguing what is definitionally possible. It is possible for the DM to not be the final authority on a rules decision, because someone else is who they listen to. Which you just admitted is a possibility but is not how the game has been described in the books for the last half century. So we have two possible ways to do it. One where the DM is the Final Authority, and one where they are not. Right but I've never been discussing whether or not a roll has advantage or what number a DC is. That has never been the character of the rules discussion I've engaged in. So of your three categories, it seems I've been discussing one of them. And, to make another point, since we agree that a 3rd party can be the Final Authority of a rules decision is a DM obeys their rule decisions, then in regards to world building it is very possible for the author of a book to be the final authority on a setting. Yes, you Oofta run a homebrew world over which you demand final authority status over, but the role of a DM does not inherently require that, when a DM can reference various setting books and authors as the final authority of the world they are running. So while being the Final Authority may be a factor of how YOU run games, it is not an inherent truism for all DMs at all tables for all time. [/QUOTE]

Verification