Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2582714" data-attributes="member: 22779">I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it.&nbsp; Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question.&nbsp; Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING.&nbsp; I would think that that's obvious.&nbsp; If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included.&nbsp; Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion.&nbsp; Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.&nbsp; Maybe I've been lucky.&nbsp; I've never seen players try anything remotely like this.&nbsp; In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset.&nbsp; This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM.&nbsp; Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no.&nbsp; Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies.&nbsp; To me, RAW is defined by setting.&nbsp; That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign.I would agree with that except for one very important fact.&nbsp; A feat that is in the Complete Warrior has the added advantage of peer review.&nbsp; A homebrew feat does not, unless the DM in question chooses to put it up for review.&nbsp; This doesn mean that published bits are automatically better, just that published bits get the benefit of a LOT more examination than non-published bits.And right there, that's the point I was looking for.&nbsp; If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM.&nbsp; However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party.&nbsp; The DM can sit back and giggle.&nbsp; He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish.&nbsp; If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine.&nbsp; Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral.&nbsp; I'm entirely neutral in the matter.&nbsp; If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool.&nbsp; It's a win win situation for me.&nbsp; On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players.&nbsp; That's something I try to avoid as much as possible.&nbsp; &nbsp; Why should the players have to &quot;make do&quot; with whatever the DM condescends to gift them?&nbsp; It's their character concepts, not mine.&nbsp; If they have the cash to do it, go for it.&nbsp; If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them.&nbsp; Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2582714, member: 22779"] I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it. Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question. Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it. As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING. I would think that that's obvious. If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included. Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion. Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included. Maybe I've been lucky. I've never seen players try anything remotely like this. In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset. This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM. Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no. Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer. I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies. To me, RAW is defined by setting. That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign. I would agree with that except for one very important fact. A feat that is in the Complete Warrior has the added advantage of peer review. A homebrew feat does not, unless the DM in question chooses to put it up for review. This doesn mean that published bits are automatically better, just that published bits get the benefit of a LOT more examination than non-published bits. And right there, that's the point I was looking for. If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM. However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party. The DM can sit back and giggle. He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish. If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine. Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral. I'm entirely neutral in the matter. If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool. It's a win win situation for me. On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players. That's something I try to avoid as much as possible. Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them? It's their character concepts, not mine. If they have the cash to do it, go for it. If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them. Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that? [/QUOTE]

Verification