Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9550869" data-attributes="member: 7025508">That a complete non sequitur. We are talking about language, usage of words. Basically everyone thinks that D&D has rules despite the GM being able to override them. If you think those are actually not rules, it is you who is wrong.What does this mean? It is not wrong, it is not a printing error, they obviously meant to write those things. You might not like it, and you can houserule it for your own game (ironically perfectly within the rules by the rule you want to eliminate,) but it doesn't make the rule "wrong."I said what I meant by literally, and that was not "legally" and it definitely was not "theoretically," it was "in actuality." King having such power is polite fiction, it is not a power they can actually use.Except there can be unwritten laws and rules that are just agreed upon verbally. Conventions and practices can also be written down. These theoretical distinctions you try to make are not as clear cut as you think, and many times in practice do not matter.EDIT: But I regret mentioning the UK political setup, as whilst an interesting subject, is not exactly fall within the remit of this forum, so perhaps it would be best to direct further discussion towards RPG rules?I am not particularly surprised.</blockquote>