Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6780423" data-attributes="member: 23751">Engaging in fallacies doesn't illustrate absurdities.&nbsp; It just makes your argument logically invalid.&nbsp; The extent that you took it went waaaaaaaay out of bounds of what I have been arguing, so you lost any point you were trying to make. That's a horrible analogy.&nbsp; The DM is not acting as a referee when he changes the rules.&nbsp; He only acts as a referee when he is following the rules exactly in his rulings.&nbsp; The instant the group hits a gap that the rules don't cover, he is no longer a referee and is a game master who has the right and authority to change the rules in order to close that gap.Another Strawman.&nbsp; I've never claimed that the DM following the rules is a house rule.&nbsp; I have only ever said that closing gaps in the rules which always requires a rules change, and other intentional changes to rules are house rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6780423, member: 23751"] Engaging in fallacies doesn't illustrate absurdities. It just makes your argument logically invalid. The extent that you took it went waaaaaaaay out of bounds of what I have been arguing, so you lost any point you were trying to make. That's a horrible analogy. The DM is not acting as a referee when he changes the rules. He only acts as a referee when he is following the rules exactly in his rulings. The instant the group hits a gap that the rules don't cover, he is no longer a referee and is a game master who has the right and authority to change the rules in order to close that gap. Another Strawman. I've never claimed that the DM following the rules is a house rule. I have only ever said that closing gaps in the rules which always requires a rules change, and other intentional changes to rules are house rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification