2E D&D vs. 4E D&D: Which combat is more interesting?

[Kaelik]

Actually, all of those things are bad for the game. Very bad.

Maybe if poorly implemented they're bad, but they need to be there for the game not to suck. A system where you can't do anything outside the box could be the most perfectly balanced, streamlined system ever - and I would still have no interest in playing it.

It's like you've got a car, which a bit rusty, has engine problems, and is unsafe at high speed. Not ideal. But fixing the problem by removing the wheels makes the car useless. Even if you then rebuild the rest of it into prime condition.

Actually, doing things outside the box is pretty much terrible for the game in every way.

For example, if there were rules for throwing scenery, that would be good. If there were no rules for throwing scenery, it would be a DM fiat activity, and judging eagle and myself would be master scenery throwers, and crissa's identical character would suck (I have to take JE's word on this. Maybe his DM is really easy to manipulate?)

The point being that, activities which are:

1) unpredictable by the player before announcing them
2) subject to the players descriptive or coercive powers

are inherently destructive of the game.

What you are actually asking for is that instead of Rogues getting sneak attack "when dex is denied" and "when the target is flanked" with "whenever the player can convince the DM he should get it."

So you will create systems in which JE plays a Rogue and evocatively describes running up to someone and pushing up on their chin to sneak attack them, tying it to his personal experience.

Meanwhile, Crissa plays a rogue that never gets SA, because she attempts to get sneak attack based on a method she thinks should work, quickdrawing weapons, but the DM disagrees and her entire character is totally worthless.

Player agency is the primary conceit of a an actual game. And agency does not just me taking actions, it means making choices based on accurate judgments of the effects of your future actions.

If you have a feat called quick draw that is taken at character creation, whether or not quick drawing results in SA can not be left to the decision of the DM after the fact, it must be spelled out in the game.

In 2e, Str 25 giving you a no save, easy attack role helpless condition every round is something that damn well has a huge effect on player agency. If that's in the rules, people can build their characters knowing it exists. If it's not in the rules, people cannot, and player agency is destroyed.

TL/DR: Every time you cast a spell in D&D, you are performing an action that is codified in the rules, but can be used for outside the box thinking. Everytime you bullshit your DM into letting you throw a table as an AoE trip, you are punching the other players in the eye and telling them that they can never do the things you can do.

[Ice9]

There are ways for the rules to mostly encompass actions without having a strict list of what is possible. But if the answer to "what happens when I throw a table at someone?" is "you can't, the system would break" then the system is too weak.

[Roy]

4e has an out of combat?

-Crissa

Yeah sure. You click on the sprites and flip through some dialog menus. Occasionally to mix it up your screen turns red and alarm bells go off, while the words SKILL CHALLENGE appear and block out your UI. And you have to throw dice at it repeatedly until it goes away, because it's a green haloed mob that can fuck you up if you don't.

[souran]

2e combat especially pre combat and tactics was total crap.

2e combat was always bullshit because it assumed that there was no representation. It basically gave DMs the licence to say "you can't hit him, he is to far away" or "he was out of that aoe effect"

It was even more stupid because half the values on a 2e charsheet are set up to be abstractions for minatures play. The reason movement rates are 6 and 12 and whatnot and you have to multiply by 5 to get a linear distance is because your movement rate is tied to how many SQUARES gygax thought shit should move back in CHAINMAIL.

2e combat was practially not worth playing unless you added in basically every optional rule so that there was something worth thinking about. Also, considering that every table I ever got to play at (including conventions) the DM didn't understand that the whole point of the initiative system was that people who rolled well get to react to the announced actions of slower people.

Also, please stop with the the retarded meme that 2e/3e/whatever has "better out of combat" stuff than 4e. All 3 games use the same rules for encumbrance and exploration and site lines. All of them have similar rules for overland travel.

3e and 4e have a skill system while 2e has a massive argument over player knowledge vs. character knowledge that was replayed on these very boards. 2e characters can't do ANYTHING except what the gamemaster explicilty allows.

Anyway 2e combat was crap.

[shadzar]

It was even more stupid because half the values on a 2e charsheet are set up to be abstractions for minatures play. The reason movement rates are 6 and 12 and whatnot and you have to multiply by 5 to get a linear distance is because your movement rate is tied to how many SQUARES gygax thought shit should move back in CHAINMAIL.

Movement
Closely related to time is movement. Clearly your character is able to move; otherwise, adventures would be rather static and boring. But how fast can he move? If a large, green carrion crawler is scuttling after Rath, is the redoubtable dwarf fast enough to escape? Could Rath outrun an irritated but heavily loaded elf? Sooner or later these considerations become important to player characters.
All characters have movement rates that are based on their race. Table 64 lists the movement rates for unencumbered characters of different races.
A character can normally walk his movement rate in tens of yards in a single round. An unencumbered human can walk 120 yards (360 feet), slightly more than a football field, in one minute. A dwarf, similarly equipped, can walk 60 yards in the same time. This walk is at a fairly brisk, though not strenuous, pace that can be kept up for long periods of time.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Try getting your information right before you denounce it please.

Your 6 and 12 representing "tens of yards" so you add a 0 to the end of the number. Not multiply by 5. Not game without enormous mechs has a square equal to 10 yards length or width.

You are mixing the movement inches in 1st, or spell inches in 2nd with movement in 2nd.

Just like any graphs the number was the smallest needed in the range or listed key for that number.

The distances represented are not hard to figure out, and don't need minis.

Also note in 2nd and previous the need for a battlemat wasn't there because players were supposed to make their own maps as characters would not be handed some perfect map of their area in order to explore it.

You turn left at the end of a 20 foot hallway, you make your map reflect that left turn by the cartographer in the group. Don't want to use one, then guess your way back out.

Miniatures only came into 2nd via combat and tactics. All other things could be done without them, and without DM fiat to decide what goes on with competent players.

[Judging__Eagle]

Souran, I am so very glad that my 2e group relied on stuff like battlemats and grid-marked maps and such.

Yeah, the idea that characters in one game can move at a set rate, and the same rate in an other game, is... really dumb.

Gygax didn't realize at the time that "system" determines a lot of things; and that using things from an other system will result in 'problems', to say the very least.

[Kaelik]

There are ways for the rules to mostly encompass actions without having a strict list of what is possible. But if the answer to "what happens when I throw a table at someone?" is "you can't, the system would break" then the system is too weak.

What a beautiful Strawman you have there.

What you are missing is that the actual answer in 2e to "what happens when I throw a table at someone?" is "The system would break." And that is precisely the problem. Because literally every single thing JE did followed this pattern:

1) Break the game by performing an action that is not anywhere in the rules at all.
2) Argue with the DM to convince him your action should be X power.

See what the problem is there. I'll give you a hint, in involved the fact that the DM used Rule 0.

If they had rules for throwing common objects, then that wouldn't be a damn problem, because they could follow the rules, and the other players could reasonably expect to understand what the allowable action space is.

I am not claiming that the actions should be not allowed, I am explicitly saying that in order for your game to promote player agency, IE, not suck, it needs to explicitly define the results of any and all possible actions the players would ever want to take.

If someone ever thinks of the idea of throwing a table, you better have rules for throwing a table.

3e has those rules. 2e does not. This is not an edition war statement, but this is the point that 3e is a game about player agency (and the DM is a player), and 2e is a game about DM agency (and players are not DMs, so they get no agency).

So the part where the way JE's character threw the table was that first JE had to convince the DM that he could, then he had to convince the DM what the result would be.

That means that JE is no longer playing D&D. He is now playing Mother May I. The fact that he succeeds does not make the D&D game better. He's still playing a game that is not even played by elementary school kids, because it's that shitty.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Kaelik,

Is your argument that having rules to cover many situations is superior to having rules cover only a few situations?

I'm curious how a game designer decides, when the amount of rules for specific situations is too much or too little.

Peace,
Bill

[shadzar]

So the part where the way JE's character threw the table was that first JE had to convince the DM that he could, then he had to convince the DM what the result would be.

No he didn't because if he did, then there was an idiot for a DM.

To throw anything in the rules already exist. Why can you throw a hammer(throwing or other), but not a table, a torch, etc?

It doesn't require a rule telling you you can. The very nature of humans able to throw things tells you that you are not limited in what you can throw.

Sure there may not be some fast rule written for throwing tables, such as hammer, but all the tools you need are there.

If someone tells you here is a free house, and points you to enough lumber to build a copy of Dodgers Stadium, and hammers, nails, and saws in order to cut the lumber and you are just too dumb to figure out what to build for yourself, or how to swing a hammer or use a saw, then you are pretty stupid. Also to complain that they gave you a free house that was not built is ungrateful.

All the tools needed to do the task are their, you just have to match them up for each task.

The DM decides how things will work when tried. that is the flaw in JE's example.

The DM nor the rules determine you cannot try something. See page 5 of the 3.5 PHB under WHAT CHARACTERS CAN DO.

If a table is present, and the player can imagine throwing it at the enemy, then the character can do so.

WHAT CHARACTERS CAN DO
A character can try to do anything you can imagine, just as long as it fits the scene the DM describes.

The same as was done in 2nd, 1st, and every other edition prior to people needing some list of buttons to push to pull off a pre-coded combo move Hadoken.

[souran]

Just to make sure I am understanding correctly,


Shadzar has posted here and in a half dozen other topics on mechanics and whatnot that

1) players can do whatever they want! See its even in the introduction! the whole universe of roleplaying is made of imginarium!

2) Because players can do anything, there is nothing players cannot do, even things for which the game has specifically given rules for perform to some characters and failed to tell other characters what their likelyhood of success is.

3) Because of 1 and 2 having a unified system or organized rules is crappy and bad. I mean, you are going to be making up half the shit it takes to play anyway! Right? All rules do is take creativity away from players! Any system that is unified or tries to cover a lot of situations with similar rules for ease of play is actually a dumbed down system made for the lowest common denominator!

4) Complexity has no bearing on how much fun a game is, a game that is tedius to play because of archaic ways of writing rules and resolving die rolls will not be frustrating because once you do it a thousand times you will get used to it. Besides the DM should be handeling all that crap so you can immerse yourself!

5) blah blah blah. blah blaaaah blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah anybody who cannot do this doesn't have imaganation! Imagaination is D&D. blah blah blah.

6) Rule 0

7) Therefore 2nd ed dnd is what we should all go back to playing. We should racant the errors of our ways becuase we were having badfun and not goodfun.

Is that about right?

[shadzar]

7- I don't want a bunch of you people in 2nd, and very glad that you never come around it. You would be bounced form my games in a heartbeat.

2- No you are not right. The point is that just because the rules don't say you can do it, doesn't mean you cannot. The reason for this is because the rules cannot be all encompassing.

Catan allows a town to be built only at least 2 roads away from another. This does not mean you cannot build 3 roads away from a player. It just means you cannot build one road away.

Like Catan implying with "at least" it sets up a range of things.

0 roads away = no building
1 road away = no building
2+ roads away = building

They don't need to say you may build at 3, 4, 5, etc roads away as it is already right there.

Again this goes back to D&D created right after Chainmail where the game states.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers.

INTRODUCTION:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

D&D has been built in every edition based on these foundations.

The rules are not complete, and all that is possible within the game is not held within the books.

You imagination was/is required to play and fill in things for which there was not room in the books.

They are NOT written in stone, but guidelines.

"Enter at your own risk." Is a guideline, but not an order to stay out, or that you are not allowed to enter. Just that you do so of your own volition, and accept the consequences of that choice.

Such is everything within D&D of ALL editions.

You have carte blanche to create or recreate fictional or historic battles and the following rules will, as closely as possible, simulate what would have happened if the battle had just been fought in reality

Real world is the basis, which means you have carte blanhce to try to recreate ANYTHING in the real world that could be done, and the rules will help you do that as best as they can.

If your imagination is so limited to not be able to see beyond what is detailed in the books, then you "will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste."

Why assume that the rules are complete, when each and every version* of the game states otherwise?

Do you really not have the capacity to play the game, and require the rules to tell you everything you must do? If so, then D&D was not meant for you, and you should find something else to do with your time.

The game is of and for the imagination, and one lacking that tool, will never be able to play the game properly.

*4th is D&D in trade dress only, and is excluded from any connection to D&D otherwise.

@Bill:

Sorry but this "you can only play with what the book gives you" crap posses me off to no end. It seems to be a plague brought by 3rd edition, and it needs a cure badly or else the TTRPG industry is doomed when out dead-tree stock of OOP books turns to dust.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik,

Is your argument that having rules to cover many situations is superior to having rules cover only a few situations?

I'm curious how a game designer decides, when the amount of rules for specific situations is too much or too little.

Peace,
Bill

I think you set up a false choice here. "rules covering only a few situations" is different from "specific situations" A general "throw improvised weapon" rule is just as good as having a "throw tapestry" and "throw table" set of rules.

But if there is any situation in which your character might perform an action, that action should have rules for it.

There are few ways to determine what those situations are. The simplest is this:

1) Decide what sort of actions people will want to take in your game. Make rules for all of them.

2) Playtest those rules in a diverse a playtest as possible, with people who are good at trying to break things. Make rules for the stuff they come up with.

3) Look at other games on the market of similar style. Have rules for the things they have rules for as well.

4) Have rules for things other games didn't have rules for, that you or others noticed during play.

All of those should result in having enough rules.

Some rules can be as simple as "talking is a free action, dramatic monologues during combat are an important part of the genre" or "Humanoids breath [air] [unless another rule interferes]. They may hold their breath for X rounds."

None the less, if whether or not your character is breathing in is ever going to become important, then you had damn well better have rules for it.

[shadzar]

1) Decide what sort of actions people will want to take in your game. Make rules for all of them.

How do you decide this, if I may ask?

[Kaelik]

1) Decide what sort of actions people will want to take in your game. Make rules for all of them.

How do you decide this, if I may ask?

Well, if hypothetically you are making a D&D game:

1) Things relating to self: Breathing/Locomotion.
2) Things relating to objects: Draw weapons, picking up objects, climbing, breaking walls/ect.
3) Things relating to others: Diplomacy, Face stabbing, Non-lethal damage, casting spells, throwing random objects, special combat locomotion.

Now maybe, as you start to draw up these lists, you try to play a simple encounter (with yourself or other designers).

DM: Okay, so you walk into a room.
Player: What do I see?
Designer: Oh shit!

So then you go back and add:

1) Perception
3) Hiding from others

Playtesting is what happens when you get to the part where you don't have the time to do this yourself any more, because you can play for hours before a single action of difficulty comes up. So you outsource the "looking for action types" problem, and spend your time defining the rules for the actions you already know you need.

[souran]

7- I don't want a bunch of you people in 2nd, and very glad that you never come around it. You would be bounced form my games in a heartbeat.

And the obligatory "my gaming group/table is better than yours" comment right back at you. I am not an asshat so I don't have to bounce people from my table. In general a "if you really are not enjoying it why are you here" comment settles everything.

2- No you are not right. The point is that just because the rules don't say you can do it, doesn't mean you cannot. The reason for this is because the rules cannot be all encompassing.

This is actually exactly what I said, and the point still remains. If the SYSTEM doesn't support some characters taking actions then having those characters try those actions is likely to result in failure. The system doesn't have to have a unique rule if the system has rules that are easily applicable and similar in construction. Basically, you either need to codifiy every task (2e) or you develop a system that implicility gives you an idea how to handle new actions (most games made after 1999)

Catan allows a town to be built only at least 2 roads away from another. This does not mean you cannot build 3 roads away from a player. It just means you cannot build one road away.

Like Catan implying with "at least" it sets up a range of things.

0 roads away = no building
1 road away = no building
2+ roads away = building

They don't need to say you may build at 3, 4, 5, etc roads away as it is already right there.

Except what if it said that the player with blue buildings needs to have at least 2 roadways to build a new town and the game didn't tell anybody else how to buid new towns and only came with extra blue townmarkers?

The situation you have described is not relevant. The rules are COMPLETE by using by indicating a minimum neccessary condition. Catan also does not attempt to explain 3 is larger than 2.

Again this goes back to D&D created right after Chainmail where the game states.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers.

Blah blah blah blah imagination. Blah blah blah D&D.

D&D has been built in every edition based on these foundations.

The rules are not complete, and all that is possible within the game is not held within the books.

You imagination was/is required to play and fill in things for which there was not room in the books.

Yeah, there was not space enough or time enough to do things coherently and logically and with a system so we siad "fuck it!" and told everybody "just use your imgination" just imagine that your wizards character sheet includes a number that could be checked against to determine if you hide from the orcs. Maybe if the number you imgaine and the number the game master imagines are the same you can succeed. OR NOT! Isn't this game great!

They are NOT written in stone, but guidelines.

And the parker brothers are not going to come to your house and beat you up for dicking wth the rules to monoply either. However, it might be a good idea to have an agreeded upon set of concepts and methods of resolution for when these games are played with people who don't know each other very well, or in a convention setting or just by people who would like to spend less time yelling about rules.

Saying "its not written in stone" is not an excuse for "what we have is crap".

"Enter at your own risk." Is a guideline, but not an order to stay out, or that you are not allowed to enter. Just that you do so of your own volition, and accept the consequences of that choice.

Such is everything within D&D of ALL editions.

You have carte blanche to create or recreate fictional or historic battles and the following rules will, as closely as possible, simulate what would have happened if the battle had just been fought in reality

Blah blah blah D&D is rule 0 and blah blah not set in stone make up stuff blah.

Real world is the basis, which means you have carte blanhce to try to recreate ANYTHING in the real world that could be done, and the rules will help you do that as best as they can.

Here is the fucking key thing. The rules are there to help you AS BEST THEY CAN. So if simple more complete easier to adjudicate and modify rules help you better THAT IS WHAT THE RULES should do. Holy crap. please for the love of god crawl back under your bridge I will send the requsite 3 billy goats immediatly!

Why assume that the rules are complete, when each and every version* of the game states otherwise?

Its never been about the rules being complete its about the rules being able to handle a wide array of situations, without going crazy.

Do you really not have the capacity to play the game, and require the rules to tell you everything you must do? If so, then D&D was not meant for you, and you should find something else to do with your time.

Do you really not have the ability to do anything except play magic tea party with a character sheet in front of you? If not then I guess D&D was not meant for you and I think you should go find something else to do with your time. Maybe cops and robbers?

The game is of and for the imagination, and one lacking that tool, will never be able to play the game properly.

Imgainationaaation Imagainaation Imagation. Imagination land. Land of Imagining things. I can totally out imagine you! My imaginationed world used up all the imaginatarium and now there is none left for you!

4th is D&D in trade dress only, and is excluded from any connection to D&D otherwise.

Says the guy who won't even listen to ideas culled from 3e sourcebooks that are not crunch related. Why don't you try actually playing the game before you decide something is or isn't something.

Here is the thing. As long as the game lets me make a character to go into the dungeon and fight the dragon I think it can wear the D&D name. The rest of it is that imagination stuff you like to talk about.

[shadzar]

Now maybe, as you start to draw up these lists, you try to play a simple encounter (with yourself or other designers).

DM: Okay, so you walk into a room.
Player: What do I see?
Designer: Oh shit!

So then you go back and add:

1) Perception

Why do you need perception? Why can the DM not just state what the PC thinks it sees?

Are you trying to find a way to give some automatic ability to disbelieve an illusion?

If given to the players, then it must be given to all.

DM: You see a bed, night stand and a writing desk.

What is wrong with that?

IF someone is using an illusion then the player would have no reaosn to think someone was in there or not to try to guess. You end up with the case of continuous spot check, or searches until someone finds something or they die of old age.

Player: I look in the room what do I see (spot check)
DM: You see nothing.
P: I am sure something was supposed to be here. (spot check)
D: You still see nothing
P: Must be an illusion, I roll vs any illusions
D: You still see nothing
P: My character is blind! Watch out everyone its a trap! Throw the rogue here to disarm it and the cleric to heal me!
D:

So perception should be left to the player to figure out what if anything might be there that they do not know about, but giving the info of the bed, desk, etc lets them use that perception.

So as not to take away form the player and give it to the character instead.

Not every player will figure everything out, but that is why the game functions as a group. I would strongly question the designer that doesn't think of the group dynamic above all else, because you could create the super character that doesn't allow the other players to play from carefully picking the right rules and options to use.

So why would YOU chose perception to include in that example? (Now that you may understand why I would not include it at all, maybe you could enlighten me on why it is in 3rd and/or 4th.)

[Archmage]

Perception: Why do you need perception? Why can the DM not just state what the PC thinks it sees?

Are you trying to find a way to give some automatic ability to disbelieve an illusion?

What if there's a monster hiding in the room--like a gargoyle pretending to be a statue? Having a Perception check to notice this (opposed by the gargoyle's Hide check) is a fair way to determine whether or not the PC sees the threat.

Some characters are going to be more observant than others. Having a Perception skill helps emphasize this difference; the ranger is going to be a better spotter than the wizard (usually, anyway. The wizard might train in Perception to broaden his skills, and it's always possible that the ranger eschewed Perception in favor of something else).

IF someone is using an illusion then the player would have no reaosn to think someone was in there or not to try to guess. You end up with the case of continuous spot check, or searches until someone finds something or they die of old age.

This is more the fault of illusions working in a really stupid way in D&D. However, there are some other issues here.

This is what "take 10/take 20" rules are for. If a player says they're going to spend an hour thoroughly searching a 10x10 room, they're going to find 95% of the interesting stuff in it. The other 5%, assuming the room has some secrets (like a hidden door) might require either someone particularly good at searching (high Search check modifier or the player specifically choosing to search a particular room feature--like a suspicious bookcase, for example) or a spell like detect secret doors.

At no point do you ever get stuck making Perception checks forever. Do note that you usually can't take 20 if there are consequences for failure, because take 20 assumes that you "fail" many times. If failing to disarm a trap causes it to go off in your face, you can't take 20--so Disable Device is not a skill where you can take 20. But if you're trying to open an ordinary padlock, you can take 20 on Open Lock; it's not like you're going to give up just because you don't get it open in 6 seconds.

You also can't take 20 if you're unable to spend the extra time--it takes 20 times as long as the action normally would. So you can't take 20 to notice the hiding creature in combat, because you don't have ten minutes to search for it until you find it.

The situation you're describing actually works out like this:

Player: Okay, I'll search the wall for hidden levers.
DM: (rolls Search in secret, player doesn't do very well) You spend one minute searching the wall and don't find anything. (The player does not know if this is because there's nothing there or if he rolled poorly.)
Player: Okay, well, I'll take 20, I want to make absolutely sure there's nothing I'm missing.
DM: Alright. You spend the next 20 minutes thoroughly examining the wall and you find a hidden button. (It's possible that the PC could've still missed something just because it was that well hidden and even taking 20 didn't give him a good enough check result to beat the DC).

If anything, this method is way better than the alternative, which is that players say "I search this 5 foot section of the room" over and over again. The simple alternative--"we'll thoroughly search the room for an hour, do we find anything interesting" speeds up play and avoids making searching every room a tedious square-by-square endeavor.

[Kaelik]

Why do you need perception? Why can the DM not just state what the PC thinks it sees?

Because the DM deciding what he thinks the PC sees is an instance in which the rules failed to describe the action space, and as such, the game failed. How can I decide to spend character resources on purchasing a lantern versus Darkvision when the DM could rule anything from "candles illuminate the whole room and can be attached to your helmet" to "candles illuminate only the area within one foot of them"?

Are you trying to find a way to give some automatic ability to disbelieve an illusion?

No, I am trying to set out the rules for a game. You see, the rule "you can see anything in plain sight [unless another rule interacts with your sight]" is in fact a rule about Perception. A rule about how much light a candle gives off, or which races have darkvision or "infravision" and what that vision does, or about how an Ooze detects you without eyes, or about how you go about listening for people who are invisible to locate their presence, or how you hide in shadows. These are all rules about perception. And if any of those situations are going to come up, then they had damn well better have rules for them.

Rules about how people interact with illusions are also rules of perception as well, but I was merely laying out a general idea, I was not considering the specifics of each type of rule, and only came up with this list of perception rules because you are a dumb fuck who does not understand anything.

If given to the players, then it must be given to all.

Um... Yes? What the fuck does that mean? When have I ever said to not give it to all players? If you have rules, everyone at the table should know the rules, and follow the rules.

DM: You see a bed, night stand and a writing desk.

What is wrong with that?

Maybe he's blind? Maybe he's in a room with no light? Maybe, there is an Orc hiding somewhere in that room, and then you would need rules about how we would determine spotting that orc versus not, because, get this through your thick skull:

If the player does not know in advance from the explicitly laid out rules, how likely it is to spot such an ambush, then he will in fact be denied his agency. That is a bad thing. When the DM arbitrarily determines if the orc can hide or not, then the player is denied agency.

IF someone is using an illusion then the player would have no reaosn to think someone was in there or not to try to guess. You end up with the case of continuous spot check, or searches until someone finds something or they die of old age.

Or perhaps you have rules that do not involve spot checks, or involve passive spot checks that the DM does upon entering the room, and cannot be retried. Or perhaps the rules for illusion is that they can only be disbelieved by touching them. The rules could be any number of things, as long as those are the rules, that are set forth and not subject to change on a case by case basis by the mood the DM happens to be in.

If the player knows the rules for Illusions, then he can just decide to try to touch the things. But that decision can only come if the rules are known, and the player has agency.

So why would YOU chose perception to include in that example? (Now that you may understand why I would not include it at all, maybe you could enlighten me on why it is in 3rd and/or 4th.)

The reason you choose not to include it is because you are stupid, and deny player agency.

The reason I include it is because it is a part of the action space, and therefore must have a rule.

That is also the reason Gary fucking Gygax decided to include it too. And that is the reason perception rules exist in every single game ever made.

[shadzar]

Perception: Why do you need perception? Why can the DM not just state what the PC thinks it sees?

What if there's a monster hiding in the room--like a gargoyle pretending to be a statue? Having a Perception check to notice this (opposed by the gargoyle's Hide check) is a fair way to determine whether or not the PC sees the threat.

Some characters are going to be more observant than others. Having a Perception skill helps emphasize this difference; the ranger is going to be a better spotter than the wizard (usually, anyway. The wizard might train in Perception to broaden his skills, and it's always possible that the ranger eschewed Perception in favor of something else).

I forgot about the take 10 stuff...that aside....

Isn't a statue being present int he room, some the player needs to think about, rather than hand it over to the character?

What purpose does the player serve other than dice roller, if everything is handed via some check or other?

The DM states there is a statue in the room. What reason does the player have to think it is/could be a monster?

These are the things the player is supposed to think about and act on, not something the DM spoon feeds them.

I come from the school of describe what they could see, and let them decide if/how/when to interact with it.

I do no spoon feeding of players.

I let them try whatever with what is presenting for them. Check a statue, check whatever. It is their game and moves at their pace.

The spot thing above was literally my reaction to a player in a game. Some people are just that dumb to draw the wrong conclusions. I cannot help them their, only experience can.

The question any player has to make is do they check every 5 foot area and every room, or do they just run through the gauntlet of combats.

Only the players can make that choice, but I will force pauses where I need a break form combats as a DM. A good thing about 2nd is that it forces it too, and places to rest need to be found. That gives the DM a chance for a break, as well the players to heal up regroup their thoughts/objectives/plans.

The thing is in a game of communication, the players have to be more observation than the characters are supposed to be, because once again, it is the player playing the characters, not the other way round. The players must make the choices, the characters cannot make them for the players or themselves.

If a statue is a gargoyle and EVERYONE misses it, then it was probably a good idea for it to hide there, and the players, like/as the characters, were probably too preoccupied with other things on their minds to notice.

But it is those times the group dynamic must work to get through the game.

[Archmage]

Isn't a statue being present int he room, some the player needs to think about, rather than hand it over to the character?

But that doesn't make any sense. My character lives in a world where statues are quite frequently monsters. He might know this because he has studied them (he's trained in Arcana or Dungeoneering), or because he has heard stories (Bardic Knowledge), or any number of other things. All you're doing is encouraging the players to assume every statue might be a monster after the first time they meet a gargoyle or a golem, when, in fact, there should be a way to tell without putting one's self in danger. He should have a chance to notice that there's something weird about this statue. Otherwise your players are never going to walk down a corridor full of statues if they have any brains at all, because they could be walking into an ambush and the only way to find out is to "try it."

You say that all the DM needs to do is describe to the player what the character sees. How do you decide if the character sees a hiding monster? If you don't have Perception and Hide/Stealth skills, it's totally up to the DM whether I see the monster or not. Some DMs are going to decide I have no chance to see hiding monsters ever. Others are going to decide I see them, but only if I tell the DM exactly where in the room my character is trying to look.

This turns into Tomb of Horrors style play, no matter how many times anyone says that the ToH was not intended to represent standard D&D. You don't touch anything because it might kill you. You don't look at anything because it might kill you. Every statue, door, brick, and cobweb in the dungeon is out to get you. This isn't roleplaying, it's a game of "read the DM's mind."

Player: Is this door trapped?
DM: How are you going to find out?
Player: Uh, well...my character is a rogue. I'm not. I don't know how to pick locks or disarm traps.
DM: Too bad, I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Think of something.
Player: Okay, well, I guess I'm going to examine the hinges.
DM: You die, no save.
Player: What? Why?
DM: How would you know that? You're dead. Anyone else want to try to open the door?

If I can't make a skill check to determine whether the floor is trapped or that statue is really a monster, I'm going to hightail it the fuck out of the dungeon.

If a statue is a gargoyle and EVERYONE misses it, then it was probably a good idea for it to hide there, and the players, like/as the characters, were probably too preoccupied with other things on their minds to notice.

But you haven't explained how I would find the gargoyle in the first place. Apparently your solution is for players to constantly ask the DM, "do I think this statue is a gargoyle? How about that one? This one?"

It's much easier to assume that characters are always watching out for danger when they are exploring a dungeon. The PCs are in a dangerous situation; I'm not. Assuming that the PCs stop looking for danger just because the player "wasn't thinking about it" is stupid. My character doesn't relax and stop watching for an ambush because of what I'm doing at the table any more than he responds to the out-of-character Monty Python jokes or requests that someone grab another Mountain Dew from the fridge.

The DM can then secretly roll Perception checks or use the character's take 10 result. Then, if one of the PCs would notice something suspicious, the DM can point it out to the player and they can decide how to react. If the ranger is supposed to be the party's spotter, this lets him feel good because his character is usually the one who's the first to notice danger and warn everyone else.

This also adds to roleplaying. If the wizard rolls well and he notices something the ranger doesn't, it potentially creates an entertaining roleplaying diversion because the wizard can make a joke about noticing something ol' Eagle Eye didn't catch.

The alternative is for the gargoyles to ambush the party and the DM's response to be, "well, you didn't say you were looking for gargoyles, so you obviously didn't notice them."

Having skills doesn't prevent the player from having the final choice on what the character does. If anything, it improves the ability of the player to make choices, because now he can make educated choices. When I roll well on Arcana and determine that there's an antimagic field in the next room, that doesn't force my character to do anything. I still get to decide whether my wizard risks walking into a place where he's going to be totally defenseless. This makes the game better, not worse, because it gives the player more choices.

"Fuck you" obstacles and traps that my character didn't notice because the DM arbitrarily decided he didn't aren't fun. "Do I search for traps or not" is not an interesting choice, because the answer is always yes. "I found a trap, what do we do now" is an interesting choice.

[tzor]

I confess that I have not been in enough 4E combats to really have a well balanced opinion on this but I think that from what I have seen and from what I remember of 2E combat in general, 4E would be more interesting.

Now, don’t get me wrong, 2E, I still love it and will ever defend it. But I will never call combat “interesting.” Basically speaking 2E was the age of the tank. You swing; you hit; you repeat ad nausea. Hell, GURPS dancing (*) was more interesting.

(* GURPS dancing was an odd feature in GURPS when combatants were fighting with mismatched reach weapons that eventually got into 3E. The shorter reach fighter had to move in one hex and attack. The longer reach fighter had to step back one hex and attack resulting in a conga line of combat movement all around the battlefield.)

4E seems to be a more dynamic style of combat; not something that falls into the same old tank type of combat. (The problem is that anything drawn out too long is boring even when it allows for variations as one gets the déjà vu all over again effect. Almost all editions can suffer from this problem and 2E was no exception.) I would say that half of the cool wicked maneuvers of 4E weren’t even dreamt of in the days of 2E.

As I said, 2E was the age of the tank. Fighters got bonus attacks if they stood in one spot and fought the same adversary over and over. They inversely got bonus attacks if they stood in one spot and swept all the 1HD mooks that were trying to be sword fodder.

It was boring, but we all stood and took it like a man.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

So tzor,

In your opinion. Would 2E be better if they added maneuvers, exploits, etc. from 4th edition?

[souran]

All aboard the imagination train to Shadzar's magic tea party land where players never have to roll any dice every. Everything's possible and there are no rules! It like neverland only instead of being the first star to the right its the first right in the kitchen and down to Shadzar's basement.

We don't need no stinken rules! Its all about the game. And Imagination and if you don't see that then maybe D&D is not for you! Its about Role playing and not Roll playing. Its about having the character you want not the one that the rulebooks let you be. Its about other tired and contrite cliches used when people don't want to admit that their game sucks!

Why would we want skills and feats and options and stats and races and all that other stuff. Its just going to get in the way of calculating our THAC0's and saving throws against death and our bend bars/lift gates scores. Besides they stifle creativity. Because only when the system is needless complex and massively insufficient does creativity shine!

So come, lets go to the world where there are no rules and player characters can try anything and the game master has to pull the result out of his ass. Lets fight against the lowest comon demonitator oriented games that have shit that games don't need like working rules. Take up the banner and head to the imaganarium of the incredible imaganation of Shadzar's 2e dnd ultimate game verse thingy.

[shadzar]

If a statue is a gargoyle and EVERYONE misses it, then it was probably a good idea for it to hide there, and the players, like/as the characters, were probably too preoccupied with other things on their minds to notice.

But you haven't explained how I would find the gargoyle in the first place. Apparently your solution is for players to constantly ask the DM, "do I think this statue is a gargoyle? How about that one? This one?"

I don't assume the players or their characters are doing shit. It is their characters, and they must tell me what they are doing at all times. I will not usurp ANY control over their characters outside of mind-control for the short duration they get caught up in it form the BBEG.

Well you see a statue, how do you think you find out if it is a gargoyle? (detect magic)

How do you know your car will crank in the morning to take you to work? Batteries die, gas evaporates, people can siphon gas...there are many things that would pose as potential to cause it not to start. But you get in and stick in the key anyway.

Why?

You know all the things that could prevent it from starting, so why didn't you check on them first? Why did you assume the car would start?

Likewise for a D&D character to know of gargoyles and their abilities, it is their choice, like yours with your car, if and how to interact with it.

What are you really leaving for the players to do? Roll dice to attack, and everything else is handed to them?

Do you also have Ye Billboarde in Ye Olde Tavern, for people to get quests off of? Do they not find something to do for themselves?

Do you take total control over the players characters and railroad them into things?

The players should have total control of their characters and the decisions. Sometimes players may need a little poke int he right direction, but they must choose what they want to do or investigate.

[tzor]

As the resident old fart I have to really shred to pieces shadzar’s stupid statue is a gargoyle thing. Spoon feed my ass, back in the Original AD&D edition an elf could just waltz by a secret door and *BING* look what you just found without realizing it.

Almost every single 1E and 2E game I was in had SOP. *Standard Operating Procedure* Very few games had an “everything is out to get you” mentality, but if it looked too good to be true, it was. Fountains never have coins in them, especially a single shiny one. You could almost guarantee it was an illusion and that there was acid in the fountain.

Never the less, just like the elves can spot the secret door; the person might spot the gargoyle twitch, or might just have that odd feeling. In some cases the DM needed to get into details because those details were important. Archmage’s example is poor because while the character died, unless he was acting alone (well he was a rogue, not always the brightest in the pack, “shut up and get out of my way, you’re ruining my surprise”) the other players would have noticed the trap floor in front of the door because they would have seen how he died (falling down and the sudden silence as he entered the sphere of aniliation).