No Second Edition Love?

[Storm Raven]

Do they? Suppose Carl Lewis can jump 22 feet. Slap him in plate mail. I bet he has no clue how far he can jump. Jumping in plate mail doesn't come up in the practice arena very often.

Have him wear plate mail all day, and I would lay good odds that he'll have a pretty good idea what he can and cannot do while wearing it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Players in 1E AD&D were actually allowed/intended to read the Monster Manual. There are numerous "in milieu" passages in the descriptions that seem aimed at players as much or more than DMs (and the famous lie in the dark elf description -- stating that they are only legend). Plus, there are numerous direct references to the MM within the PH. And, last but not least, the cover blurb and introduction of the book itself -- "an invaluable aid to players and dungeon masters alike," "some DM's may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter" (emphasis mine). Compare to the in-no-way-ambiguous language in the DMG: "As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of an honorable death." (DMG, p. 8).

The DMG proscription was always amusing, especially since a large portion of material a player really needed to have was contained in that book.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Except that in real life, most people have a pretty good idea of their chances of successfully jumping a particular distance or perform various other tasks. Usually a much better idea than they have using the "pull it out of my behind" system. A game that relies upon the "suspense" of not knowing one's chances to accomplish fairly mundane tasks is a badly flawed game.

Role playing games are not meant to simulate reality. Every system is an absolute failure at that.

 

[tx7321]

Except that in real life, most people have a pretty good idea of their chances of successfully jumping a particular distance or perform various other tasks. Usually a much better idea than they have using the "pull it out of my behind" system. A game that relies upon the "suspense" of not knowing one's chances to accomplish fairly mundane tasks is a badly flawed game.

Who checks for mundane tasks, the DMs I know (myself included) don't bother with that.
When I check for something its something bloody serious. And I doubt most people have as good an idea of success then you seem to think. Don't believe me...go to the 5th floor of a hotel and jump from one balcony to another. It looks easy, but is it? (PS don't really do that. ). If your into shooting, you'll also be amazed at how easy it is to miss the center of the target at seemingly close range. Only after ALOT of experiance and training does a person have a good idea of what their chances are to do those things (jumping a chasm, climbing a slimey rope, dodging boulders in an avalanche, you name it).
You also have to remember that people perform differently under stressful situations then they do when they can relax. Its been reported that police who discharge their fire arms often miss the assailant even at very close range (due to nerves, conditions, posture and general stress) now imagine instead of some thug its a T-Rex. You get the idea.

 

[prosfilaes]

Role playing games are not meant to simulate reality. Every system is an absolute failure at that.

All role playing games are meant to simulate reality, some more than others. There's jokes about where roleplaying games don't simulate reality, and lots of complaints when it doesn't. Why was the fact that in GURPS Car Wars (1st ed), wise PCs stood between their cars and bullets because they could take more damage a detriment to the game if not for realism issues? Even though bulletproof nudity--the concept that sane women warriors can go around half-naked--is common in fantasy art and movies, the only place I've seen that rule (GURPS Compendium II) labeled it as silly.

From another tack, there's a lot of detail in the PHB on different weapons and how much damage they do in what ways. There's no reason why a sword should do less damage to a skeleton than a mace, unless you bring up realism arguments. There's no reason why a larger creature should do more damage, unless you bring up realism arguments. Some games are designed to simulate reality, like GURPS and Rolemaster, but even those that aren't, like D&D, still put quite a bit of work into the world feeling somewhat realistic, and constantly get arguments that it isn't realistic enough.

 

[prosfilaes]

Only after ALOT of experiance and training does a person have a good idea of what their chances are to do those things (jumping a chasm, climbing a slimey rope, dodging boulders in an avalanche, you name it).

A lot of the characters have a lot of experience; this is their day job.

You also have to remember that people perform differently under stressful situations then they do when they can relax. Its been reported that police who discharge their fire arms often miss the assailant even at very close range (due to nerves, conditions, posture and general stress) now imagine instead of some thug its a T-Rex. You get the idea.

Except that police have often only discharged their weapons once in their career. This is the PCs' day jobs, and they aren't going to get real stressed about it.

For me, D&D is playing heroes, in the mythic sense, and they just don't get stressed. They get cool lines in the middle of deadly battle and can jump from train car to train car with great ease. A lot of movie heroes don't ever miss when doing those types of jumps; there's a lot of argument about how or if to simulate that in RPGs, but certainly one step closer to that that preserves the risk is to let the player know when they can make it easily and when they can fail easily.

 

[Ourph]

The DMG proscription was always amusing, especially since a large portion of material a player really needed to have was contained in that book.

What information from the DMG would a player "really need" to play their character? The DM was supposed to adjudicate combat and consult the tables for attack and saving throw results. I agree that there is certain information from the DMG that a player would necessarily be exposed to during the course of play (how initiative worked for example), but nothing that would require the player to read the book before play or consult the book during play as far as I can recall.

 

[Desdichado]

I've had one actual 3e rules argument with my players. One.

And it wasn't really an argument... they accepted my ruling, they just took it as a house rule. Until I showed them, no, you really can't flank with a missile weapon.

We've had a fair amount. Not arguments, exactly, because we're all perfectly fine accepting a DM ruling, but plenty of discussions because the DM (and us) would rather do things right if it's not too difficult to do so.

However, they mostly take place in the realm of spells, which are very, very difficult to memorize, so spellcasting PC's have to consult the details of their books frequently. There's also some of that in the case of skill checks, where DC setting rules are quite a bit too common for my taste. I run skill checks pretty fast and loose, and I call for them for all kinds of actions that players may want to take, making up a DC on the fly that sounds reasonable. I can actually quite appreciate tx's stance there--I like having the ability to adjudicate on the fly. I actually think d20 gives you a much more solid framework to do that with than prior editions of D&D, but if you have rules lawyery players, d20 also does give them a lot of tools with which to be really annoying.

HOWEVER, I'm still in the camp that that's not a rules problem but a player problem. No one in my current group is like that, and we'd be unlikely to admit anyone to our group at this point that brought that vibe to the table.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Have him wear plate mail all day, and I would lay good odds that he'll have a pretty good idea what he can and cannot do while wearing it.

I doubt it. I've worn a 50+poundbackpack for days at a time on about a thousand trips. I have no clue if I could jump three feet or five or twelve with it on. Jumping just isn't something you practice while loaded down withh gear or armor.

 

[Storm Raven]

Role playing games are not meant to simulate reality. Every system is an absolute failure at that.

No, they don't. However, the claim I am dealing with is that it is "unrealistic" for people to know what their chances are at something. I am pointing out that most people have a pretty good idea of that. So defending ad hoc rulings on a realism basis is simply off-base.

I'm not sure what your comment is intended to address though. No one claimed that not knowing the chances made for a superior game. The claim was made that not knowing the chances made for a realistic game. I don't think that is the case.