Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8675886" data-attributes="member: 6993955">That's actually the narrow reading I was talking about. Yes, the rules do serve the DM, but that's not quite the same thing as giving the DM carte blanche to muck about at a whim either. That caveat is generally followed by a statement something like &quot;don't let the rules get in the way&quot;. So while, yes, if you read that one statement by itself then I can see where someone might get to ultimate cosmic power, but that's not actually what is meant by that statement. The freedom that rule gives is a freedom from restriction that negatively impacts play (or desired play state, or whatever), something that is made explicit in the rules to some degree or another.. On a related note there's a significant difference between DM selection of DM facing rules prior to play, and DMs changing player facing rules on the fly and on a whim. The DM is, for example, free to chose whatever encumbrance system they want, or restrict lineages or spells available to players, or even (why not) make changes to spells. That's not at all the same as changing the effect of a cast fireball in play. The second example is where we start talking more firmly about the social contract IMO.I agree about the reasoning behind the RAW thing too, the reason it comes up is because some people give the idea of the social contract at the table no consideration when they read the rules. That's unfortunate because it actually underpins the whole endeavor rather than being an add-on or afterthought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 8675886, member: 6993955"] That's actually the narrow reading I was talking about. Yes, the rules do serve the DM, but that's not quite the same thing as giving the DM carte blanche to muck about at a whim either. That caveat is generally followed by a statement something like "don't let the rules get in the way". So while, yes, if you read that one statement by itself then I can see where someone might get to [I]ultimate cosmic power[/I], but that's not actually what is meant by that statement. The freedom that rule gives is a freedom from restriction that negatively impacts play (or desired play state, or whatever), something that is made explicit in the rules to some degree or another.. On a related note there's a significant difference between DM selection of DM facing rules prior to play, and DMs changing player facing rules on the fly and on a whim. The DM is, for example, free to chose whatever encumbrance system they want, or restrict lineages or spells available to players, or even (why not) make changes to spells. That's not at all the same as changing the effect of a cast fireball in play. The second example is where we start talking more firmly about the social contract IMO. I agree about the reasoning behind the RAW thing too, the reason it comes up is because some people give the idea of the social contract at the table no consideration when they read the rules. That's unfortunate because it actually underpins the whole endeavor rather than being an add-on or afterthought. [/QUOTE]

Verification