The other side of the coin

[ExploderWizard]

... to me, the difference between the way a system with skill rules and a system without skill rules plays out simply comes down to this...

[System without skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I wedge an iron spike in the lever mechanism to deactivate it.
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.

[System with skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I try to deactivate the lever by wedging an iron spike into the mechanism. ::rolls::
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.

I don't see any real difference in those examples either. The key factor in both of them is that the player was thinking, engaged and involved in the process beyond the die roll. It proves that merely having a resolution system available doesn't remove player input. With a less engaged player we can get this:


[System with skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: Disable device ..............I got a 28
DM: What are doing exactly?
Player: disabling the thingy.
DM: OK. What are you doing again?

Resolution systems can become crutches for not describing your actions but they don't have to be.

 

[Ourph]

Possibly, but I've also seen plenty of play where the scenario runs like this...

DM: You find the lever that activates the trap.
Player: I disable the lever somehow.
DM: OK. The trap is disabled.

That scenario can happen regardless of the presence or abscence of a skill system and entirely depends on how much detail the group wants to engage in during play and (IME) it's what happens in ANY group after the first two or three times the player says something specific about how he's disabling a trap. After all, how many times do you really NEED the player to demonstrate he's aware that wedging an iron spike into a lever mechanism will disable it? How many times do you really NEED the player to say he's checking the lock mechanism AND the door frame AND under the door AND the floor in front of the door for traps before you get to the point where the player can just say "I check for traps" and the DM assumes all of those places get checked? Sure, a DM and player might engage in some detailed descriptions the first few times, but I can't believe it persists for so long that it actually becomes a defining feature of game play in the way that the OSR bloggers describe it.

There may be some DMs and some groups of players out there who think it's fun to go through the whole litany every single time they encounter such a situation, but I've never encountered anyone like that in my many years of playing D&D; and I cannot comprehend what such a group would get out of that kind of play. I also find it very hard to believe that kind of play was so common BITD that it defined an entire generation of gaming experiences.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A combination of both styles is perfect for me:

in 3rd edition i have played sessions without needing to throw a dice, and others where we had big battles and skill checks...

@disabling traps:
Even if a skill check decides if the character can disable the trap, the adventurr should have some clue ow he could do it gaining bonuses to tha check or an automatic success if the idea could work. If the player is clueless, his character can still use the roll.

"I disable the lever somehow" would be an unmodified check for sure
maybe with penalties, if no thieves tools are at hand...

This is exactly why you never should leave the house without iron wedges

 

[JRRNeiklot]

There may be some DMs and some groups of players out there who think it's fun to go through the whole litany every single time they encounter such a situation, but I've never encountered anyone like that in my many years of playing D&D; and I cannot comprehend what such a group would get out of that kind of play. I also find it very hard to believe that kind of play was so common BITD that it defined an entire generation of gaming experiences.

But it did. Every group I played in back in the day did it that way. We described how we disabled the trap. Every time. Sometimes it was as simple as "I jam the lever with a spike" or "I cut the trip wire." Other times, it was more detailed, depending on the nature of the trap. Of course, the more devious traps required a disable device roll, but any idiot can cut a trip wire so the trap doesn't activate. We described it because we were exploring a world, and taking the logical means to an end, not being plot mechanisms in a story. Story was secondary to immersion in a fantasy world.

 

[Mournblade94]

A combination of both styles is perfect for me:

in 3rd edition i have played sessions without needing to throw a dice, and others where we had big battles and skill checks...

@disabling traps:
Even if a skill check decides if the character can disable the trap, the adventurr should have some clue ow he could do it gaining bonuses to tha check or an automatic success if the idea could work. If the player is clueless, his character can still use the roll.

"I disable the lever somehow" would be an unmodified check for sure
maybe with penalties, if no thieves tools are at hand...

This is exactly why you never should leave the house without iron wedges

A rogue player should not have to understand the trap mechanisms in a table top RPG, anymore than a d20 modern or Hero modern game should have a lab rat PC know how to mix chemicals or create explosives.

With that said however I agree with this poster, that a mix is the best way to resolve the situation.

For those that need to know how to disarm traps, there are plenty of LARPS that allow for those oppurtunities.

That is why I never play rogues in LAIRE. I am not stealthy, I can't disarm the traps, and I can't pick laire's pickable locks.

Mages and Warriors are the best in larps because their skills don't translate well to the real world.