In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?

[werk]

Don't worry, werk. I've post the relevant quotes for you.

I know, saves so much time

 

[Storm Raven]

On the other hand, the 'chaotic' side of the debate - which I guess I'm the most bombastic member of - is claiming that fairness is maximized when fairness itself is maximized

And that's your problem. What you are claiming is "fairness maximized" (i.e. changing the rules mid-stream) is essentially, inherently unfair.

 

[Storm Raven]

Let's be clear about what a charge is under the rules. A charge is not 40 yards in 6 seconds, which is a very fast run.

You are right, I was referring to a run action with the speed, and saying a charge action. I conflated a couple of sentences for some reason.

A charge is for characters of average speed, 20 yards in 6 seconds which is a moderate jog.

It's much more than a moderate job when you are carrying a typical adventurer's volume of gear.

I mean, should the fact that an octagonal track could be sized such that a character of only average athletic ability in chainmail and an unencumbered olympic sprinter would run around it at exactly the same speed bother you in any way? If it does, do you say to your PC's, "Even though this may never come up in the game again, we can't change the rule to let you win the race because we don't change house rules in the middle of the game.

"Letting a player win" just deflates the accomplishment of victory. If you run a race and come in third, how much satisfaction do you gain from my coming up and pinning a 1st place ribbon on you?

 

[Celebrim]

"Letting a player win" just deflates the accomplishment of victory. If you run a race and come in third, how much satisfaction do you gain from my coming up and pinning a 1st place ribbon on you?

That a red herring. We aren't talking about fudging results here.

The question is whether a character should win a race against a clearly disadvantaged foe when the only thing that prohibits the character is an arbitrary rule.

Let's say you have a character with the Run feat, 15 STR, 18 DEX, and 40' movement, and a the other character has a 30' movement, 12 STR, 12 DEX and lacks the run feat. The track is octogonal (45 degree turns) a length of 90' along each straight way. Neither character can move more than 90' in a turn under the rules because under the rules they must stop thier run at each turn. Hense, the faster character can never really get away from the slower one despite the common sense understanding that faster runners ought to win races.

In this case, its not a matter of 'letting' the PC win. It's a matter of the rules cheating the PC out of his well deserved victory. Strictly trying to run this race by the rules, if the faster character lost the initiative he'd automatically cross the finish line second.

Then the chieftain says to party, "Trespassers, clearly you are unworthy. You have failed the trial. You'll now be thrown into the volcano."

The DM apologizes and says, "Hey, those are the rules. We all agreed to them before hand. I'm sorry you don't think that its fair, but I believe that the game is most fair when we always follow the rules."

 

[Storm Raven]

In this case, its not a matter of 'letting' the PC win. It's a matter of the rules cheating the PC out of his well deserved victory. Strictly trying to run this race by the rules, if the faster character lost the initiative he'd automatically cross the finish line second.

Nope. Use the Evasion and Pursuit rules and make opposed Dexterity checks or opposed Constitution checks. The rules describe the situation perfectly well without having to come up with a "you win by fiat" result, and entirely avoiding an arbitrary on the spot ruling.

 

[TheEvil]

That a red herring. We aren't talking about fudging results here.

The question is whether a character should win a race against a clearly disadvantaged foe when the only thing that prohibits the character is an arbitrary rule.

Let's say you have a character with the Run feat, 15 STR, 18 DEX, and 40' movement, and a the other character has a 30' movement, 12 STR, 12 DEX and lacks the run feat. The track is octogonal (45 degree turns) a length of 90' along each straight way. Neither character can move more than 90' in a turn under the rules because under the rules they must stop thier run at each turn. Hense, the faster character can never really get away from the slower one despite the common sense understanding that faster runners ought to win races.

In this case, its not a matter of 'letting' the PC win. It's a matter of the rules cheating the PC out of his well deserved victory. Strictly trying to run this race by the rules, if the faster character lost the initiative he'd automatically cross the finish line second.

Then the chieftain says to party, "Trespassers, clearly you are unworthy. You have failed the trial. You'll now be thrown into the volcano."

The DM apologizes and says, "Hey, those are the rules. We all agreed to them before hand. I'm sorry you don't think that its fair, but I believe that the game is most fair when we always follow the rules."

This strikes me as a situation of the GM screwing over the players (actually, I think this might be one of those 'strawman' thingies people keep talking about...). This is a situation the GM set-up and chose to run in a way that would exploit an oddity of the rules to disadvantage the player. Almost any GM I have ever played with would compare movement rates and mitigating conditions and declare a winner. There might be a few dice rolls involved for said conditions (a loose flagstone, for example).

 

[Nail]

(actually, I think this might be one of those 'strawman' thingies people keep talking about.)

...and you'd be right.

 

[Henry]

Almost any GM I have ever played with would compare movement rates and mitigating conditions and declare a winner. There might be a few dice rolls involved for said conditions (a loose flagstone, for example).

Sounds a lot like what Celebrim would advocate, and myself, for that matter; on the other hand, it would also be perfectly valid to use another set of chase rules (Hot Pursuit by Adamant Entertainment, for example, or Spycraft's rules, etc.).

Use the Evasion and Pursuit rules and make opposed Dexterity checks or opposed Constitution checks. The rules describe the situation perfectly well without having to come up with a "you win by fiat" result, and entirely avoiding an arbitrary on the spot ruling.

Storm Raven, as DM, if you had foreseen that a chase would be necessary, would you advocate bonuses for mitigating cicumstances in these rules? For instance, if character A did have the Run feat, or if Character B was hobbled with a heavy backpack, would you allow a +2 or +4 bonus to this check, or a -2 or -4 penalty as the case may warrant, or would you run the rules straight up as defined in the DMG?

Or, if you have not planned on a chase, and the circumstances had come up, would you only run the rule as written (which to me is a pretty skimpy rule after re-reading it in the SRD just now) without any circumstance modifiers, or would you add these in at the time?

 

[apesamongus]

The track is octogonal (45 degree turns) a length of 90' along each straight way. Neither character can move more than 90' in a turn under the rules because under the rules they must stop thier run at each turn. Hense, the faster character can never really get away from the slower one despite the common sense understanding that faster runners ought to win races.

I think a good starting place would be not using combat movement rules for a non-combat situation.

 

[Seeten]

As a point of note, circumstance bonuses are RAW, not "DM Fiat".

If we are discussing flat out making stuff up, we cant use circumstance bonuses to illustrate the "Making up" part.