DM's and Rules Lawyers - How Would You Rule this Deadly Situation?

[Storm Raven]

As such, the fighter was left having to make an opposed strength check to barge past the horse. Strangely enough, he failed. Attack of opportunity, whooshka. Still alive but barely.
At this point, the argument developed from the fighters player. He thought he could easily move through the horse's square using it as cover to avoid the attack of opportunity. In the heat of battle with a cherished character on the canvas, emotions took over. If you want to find out what happened afterwards, you'll just have to read the story hour when it finally catches up to this moment (see signature).

The player is basically right here. If it is an ally, he should be able to pass through it's sqaure. If it is an obstacle, he should be able to use it for cover.

 

[Nail]

I'm inclined to agree, I could see slowing movement, I suppose....

Ummmm.......how? What rule says that?

In any case, the only square(s) the Ftr could NOT pass through would be those of the GSG. He could pass through the centipedes squares, he could pass through the 'Steed squares.....etc.

Sounds like this group needs to bone up on the movement rules. (I'm sure the group is otherwise great.)

 

[Balok the Strange]

Not sure how this one is going to go over, but here it goes.

I've been engaged in this hobby for more than 20 years now. I have seen and played every edition of D&D there has been pretty much. For most of that time, it has been my priviledge to be the DM for the various groups with whom I have played. Over those two decades I have learned one very important thing:

There's rules, and then there's more rules, and then there's common sense, and then there's the story.

As a long-time gamer and game designer, I know that there will always be situations that crop up that the designer has not and cannot anticipate. Even if they can anticipate them, they can't necessarily write the rules for them: if the designer's try to take into account every single permutation than the rulebook would become prohibitively huge.

During my tenure as DM, I have learned that as artifical constructs designed to facilitate gameplay, rules are sometimes unable to take into account logic and reality, especially during combat situations. Realistic combat cannot be achieved using the standard D&D rules. I recall only one game system that tried to represent realistic combat, and the entire game would bog down once combat began. D&D combat is really quite simplified and abstract in nature. This has been done to speed up combat situations.

Common sense often wins out in games that I run. If the rules don't cover the situation, or the rules that do cover similar situations cannot logically be applied, than I go with logic over rules.

When it comes to telling the story in which the PCs find themselves, I can, will, and have thrown the rule books out the window if they interfere with what it is I'm trying to do.

I have only ever caused the demise of a handful of PCs over the years. I cringe every time it happens. I had to do it recently, but that was only due to the actions of the PCs and not anything I had planned or done. There are times that I go out of my way not to kill a PC. If letting a wounded PC escape from a situation as outlined above does nothing to harm the plotline, and does everything to help keep the player's precious PC alive, than my ruling would have been easy: Let the PC escape.

I know, not as rules heavy as other responses, but more usable.

 

[JimAde]

Naughty Sean! Trying to introduce common sense to a rules discussion. Go lay by your dish!

 

[Philip]

Next time the player should just have the fighter keel over and play dead (after a 5 ft. step perhaps?). The golem, being mindless, would not attack non-aggressive non-moving targets, especially as there are other's creatures attacking it. No need to risk the AoO if you really don't want to. Plenty of ways to avoid AoO's from golems too.

 

[Storm Raven]

There's rules, and then there's more rules, and then there's common sense, and then there's the story.

You lost me here. There is no story other than the one that comes after the game is done. A DM trying to "tell a story" during a session is barking up the wrong tree: he should be writing a novel instead of sitting around with a bunch of gamers.

During my tenure as DM, I have learned that as artifical constructs designed to facilitate gameplay, rules are sometimes unable to take into account logic and reality, especially during combat situations. Realistic combat cannot be achieved using the standard D&D rules.

No it can't. When I want realism, I'll go strap on my hogu. When I'm playing D&D, I'd like the D&D rules to be used, those I can predict. The DM coming up with what makes "common sense" (which often isn't) is basically just screwing my character by removing his ability to make choices based on the information I had to go on when we started the session.

I know, not as rules heavy as other responses, but more usable.

Or, for people who think the whole "I'm a DM telling story" thing is a load of horse manure (like me), completely useless.

 

[Nail]

When I'm playing D&D, I'd like the D&D rules to be used, those I can predict. The DM coming up with what makes "common sense" (which often isn't) is basically just screwing my character ....

Or being too generous.

I, too, like the rules to be used when I'm playing. (And I'm not sure how much Balok disagrees with this general statement.) The rules allow my PC to do the unexpected, to surprise the DM, to assess the worthiness of my opponents, to survive and prosper, etc. How can I know what my PC can do if there are no rules?

In any case, that's pretty far off-topic. The situation posited by the OP has a (relatively) clear rule to guide play .....and the DM (and players?) either a) Ignored it, or b) are Ignorant of it.

IMHO, that's too bad. ....and, as always, YMMV.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or being too generous.

In my book, that's screwing my character, since it makes what was predictable, unpredictable. And probably makes the game less fun too (how fun is it if I know the DM is saving my PC).

 

[Nail]

makes the game less fun

Yup. Agreed.

I'm one of those strange players that likes a challenge, not a gimme.

 

[werk]

No it can't. When I want realism, I'll go strap on my hogu. When I'm playing D&D, I'd like the D&D rules to be used, those I can predict. The DM coming up with what makes "common sense" (which often isn't) is basically just screwing my character by removing his ability to make choices based on the information I had to go on when we started the session.

Preach on brother man...

Rules rule!