Yes, there’s a California rule that states that redistricting is done by a non-partisan commission. This explicitly sidesteps that process. They’re breaking a rule with permission but they’re still breaking a rule.
If your DM rules that you can have two actions in a turn without reason, it’s still cheating.
I’d argue this is explicitly not cheating. Revising the rules though a democratic process IS democracy.
The D&D example is closer since it doesn’t explicitly call for buy-in from the whole table, but the first and only rule of D&D is to have fun with the DM being chief facilitator. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions. If this favoritism caused others in the party to feel slighted, then it would be ‘cheating’.
Yes, there’s a California rule that states that redistricting is done by a non-partisan commission. This explicitly sidesteps that process. They’re breaking a rule with permission but they’re still breaking a rule.
If your DM rules that you can have two actions in a turn without reason, it’s still cheating.
No, it is not, DM has absolute power and can do whatever he wants, this is no cheating, this is just how DnD works.
And, in a true/healthy democracy, rules can be changed by demo as they have the cracy. Anything else would be cheating.
I’d argue this is explicitly not cheating. Revising the rules though a democratic process IS democracy.
The D&D example is closer since it doesn’t explicitly call for buy-in from the whole table, but the first and only rule of D&D is to have fun with the DM being chief facilitator. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions. If this favoritism caused others in the party to feel slighted, then it would be ‘cheating’.