Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2243858" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yeah, me too.As an example, absolutely.&nbsp; But the wonderful thing about arguing with an absolutist is they still have to squirm around and defend thier position no matter how absurd your example is. Which presumes that the DM is always foresightful and aware that the situation is going to screw over the players, but yes it strikes me that way as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the real important point to me is how is that different from a PC exploiting an oddity of the rules to gain an advantage for themselves?&nbsp; Remember, unlike my strawman example, most situational oddities arise purely through some unforeseen chance.&nbsp; &nbsp; Why should we consider the DM's rigid adherance to the rules when it advantages the NPC's to be any better than the DM's spontaneous house rules that advantages the NPC's?&nbsp;&nbsp; And if we can't, isn't the real issue here something other than following or not following the rules?Precisely.&nbsp; In practice, the rules change to fit the circumstances, and DM's are always rigging up ways to handle situations that they can tell the rules don't handle.&nbsp;&nbsp; The very fact that we know to handle the situation using the very very roughly described evasion and pursuit 'rules' (which if you read them are hardly firm rules) rather than the normal rules of movement indicates the knowledge that the rules are highly subjective.&nbsp;&nbsp; As I've just shown, you can't apply one set of rules to every situation.&nbsp;&nbsp; In effect, you have to have a 'house rule' for when each situation applies, because I could keep increasing the complexity of the scenario to the point when the evasion and pursuit rules don't seem like the best way to handle things.&nbsp; For example, the runners are being shot at by archers who must move about in order to keep a clear shot while the runners are moving about the around the track.&nbsp; For example, the SRD says this about evasion and pursuit:As I've just shown, there are cases when that isn't the case.&nbsp;&nbsp; Is the octogonal track a 'mitigating circumstance'?&nbsp;&nbsp; How do we know for sure?&nbsp;&nbsp; Surely playing it out round for round seems to indicate it is, but intuitively we know that it isn't really.&nbsp; (Even people on the other side of the debate seem to agree with that).Lastly, this quote from the SRD intrigues me:Well, it seems to me that there are times when the movement rules (because no set of rules is perfect) impose unnecessary hinderances on character activities even in combat.&nbsp;&nbsp; In such cases, I much prefer the rule to be, &quot;Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 2243858, member: 4937"] Yeah, me too. As an example, absolutely. But the wonderful thing about arguing with an absolutist is they still have to squirm around and defend thier position no matter how absurd your example is. Which presumes that the DM is always foresightful and aware that the situation is going to screw over the players, but yes it strikes me that way as well. But the real important point to me is how is that different from a PC exploiting an oddity of the rules to gain an advantage for themselves? Remember, unlike my strawman example, most situational oddities arise purely through some unforeseen chance. Why should we consider the DM's rigid adherance to the rules when it advantages the NPC's to be any better than the DM's spontaneous house rules that advantages the NPC's? And if we can't, isn't the real issue here something other than following or not following the rules? Precisely. In practice, the rules change to fit the circumstances, and DM's are always rigging up ways to handle situations that they can tell the rules don't handle. The very fact that we know to handle the situation using the very very roughly described evasion and pursuit 'rules' (which if you read them are hardly firm rules) rather than the normal rules of movement indicates the knowledge that the rules are highly subjective. As I've just shown, you can't apply one set of rules to every situation. In effect, you have to have a 'house rule' for when each situation applies, because I could keep increasing the complexity of the scenario to the point when the evasion and pursuit rules don't seem like the best way to handle things. For example, the runners are being shot at by archers who must move about in order to keep a clear shot while the runners are moving about the around the track. For example, the SRD says this about evasion and pursuit: As I've just shown, there are cases when that isn't the case. Is the octogonal track a 'mitigating circumstance'? How do we know for sure? Surely playing it out round for round seems to indicate it is, but intuitively we know that it isn't really. (Even people on the other side of the debate seem to agree with that). Lastly, this quote from the SRD intrigues me: Well, it seems to me that there are times when the movement rules (because no set of rules is perfect) impose unnecessary hinderances on character activities even in combat. In such cases, I much prefer the rule to be, "Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could." [/QUOTE]

Verification