Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7496896" data-attributes="member: 71699">I don't find 5th edition less comprehensive, but that seems beside the point. We agree here that right from the start, the designers acknowledged that the rules couldn't cover everything, and urged DMs to make rulings.I meant that the 5th edition rules are constitutive of 5th edition D&D. I felt you were quibbling with a general point, so locked it down to one edition. Without the 5th edition rules, one can't be said to be playing 5th edition D&D. As you noted, it follows that without D&D rules from any edition, one can't be said to be playing D&D at all.I agree with you that it can fit with the design of other mechanics, and that it's pretty minor. My point is more that the D&D designers urge DMs to shape the game according to the needs of their group, and DMs who act accordingly don't need the shield of "rulings". It's as fine for them to add, change or remove a rule, as it is for them to make a ruling on how a standing rule plays out in their game.I think there's some needless conflation of the two activities. A ruling entails deciding on an interpretation or interaction among rules as they stand. DMs aren't limited to rulings. They can revise, remove and add rules. This too is permitted <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification