Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9244992" data-attributes="member: 7030563">That is not what he is saying AT ALL.He is saying the DM is final arbitor.&nbsp; This is exacttly like the head referee in the Superbowl is the final arbitor of the NFL rules during the Superbowl&nbsp; That doesn't mean the referee can change or waive the NFL rules to suit his personal style or preferences.He is the one whio interprets them and that interpretation is final, but he does not change them.&nbsp; I did not and still do not see it at all in any 1E hardcover publication.You have provided examples that do not explicitly state rule 0, but rather imply it in some very narrow and confined circumstances.&nbsp; Having such narrow circumstances is itself contrary to the intent and meaning of Rule o in the modern context.I see nothing siggesting this in 1E.Yes, in many places and the meaning of this is elaborated on regularly, but it does not include the actual mechanics of the game.What Gygaz is talking about here is the things that are not elaborated on in the rules.&nbsp; This is clear from both the context and his commentary from elsewhere.This is very different in tone and context as compared to 5E where literally everything is by the DM purview.This speaks volumes - don't make up your own explanation, write a letter to TSR and we will tell you how it works!His campaign, not the rules and mechanics of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9244992, member: 7030563"] That is not what he is saying AT ALL. He is saying the DM is final arbitor. This is exacttly like the head referee in the Superbowl is the final arbitor of the NFL rules during the Superbowl That doesn't mean the referee can change or waive the NFL rules to suit his personal style or preferences. He is the one whio interprets them and that interpretation is final, but he does not change them. I did not and still do not see it at all in any 1E hardcover publication. You have provided examples that do not explicitly state rule 0, but rather imply it in some very narrow and confined circumstances. Having such narrow circumstances is itself contrary to the intent and meaning of Rule o in the modern context. I see nothing siggesting this in 1E. Yes, in many places and the meaning of this is elaborated on regularly, but it does not include the actual mechanics of the game. What Gygaz is talking about here is the things that are not elaborated on in the rules. This is clear from both the context and his commentary from elsewhere. This is very different in tone and context as compared to 5E where literally everything is by the DM purview. This speaks volumes - don't make up your own explanation, write a letter to TSR and we will tell you how it works! His campaign, not the rules and mechanics of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification