The absolute madman

No fear as I am protected by my fortress of 3.5 books.

But this was literally always true. If the GM wants to ignore a rule, he can do so. Provided of course the players are happy, and if not then the rulebook comes out.

But no, I must take one twitter post as evidence of some great plague upon my perfect and pure hobby.

Why did he put the (((Jew))) markings around his own name?

it's a thing betas are doing to show solidarity with god's chosen people because evil internet nazis are pointing them out :(

Meme magic

It reflects an old-school attitude toward rules, in which you only use the rules when the GM is uncertain as to what the outcome is.

For example, if you make good use of 10 foot poles, or declare that you search in the right way, you don't need dice to determine that you found the trap. If you don't find it that way, then the dice come out and you roll your PC's trap-finding skill.

Or if you already earned the trust and respect of NPCs through play, you don't need a roll to determine whether or not they'll help you. However if their loyalty is not so certain, then the GM makes a roll for it, taking into account factors like charisma and the PCs relationship to them.

>2 SJW markers
>Wife's son
Christ...

Look up Richard Garriott. He is the Alpha-Beta

I mean, in 0e there was a lot of DM fiat too, and the system was designed to tell you "hey, if your players do something not listed here, figure it out."

So how is it a bad thing to try to move back toward that philosophy?

I have no idea who Mike Mearls is.

>implying that this isn't the best way to play dnd.
Seriously, even in ADnD the rules were mostly optional. It's up to the DM to choose the best playstyle for a group of people there is no one size fits all style of play.