Sorry, but then you have a bad player/DM mesh. "I want to do X." or "Can I do Y?" are very common, most often because the player doesn't know the specific rules for the action or doesn't know how realistic an action is to perform.
<snip>
How creative a player is depends on the player, not the rules system.
<snip>
As a person, I like codified rules systems like Shadowrun or 4E Mechanically, but as a DM there are quite often far too many rules I can't all remember, that is especially bothersome when there are quite a few people that know those books inside out and some are rules lawyers. Having to often refer to the rules for subsystem X/Y/Z is bothersome and really messes with the flow of the game, the game session, takes too much time and generally has a negative impact on my gaming group.
Now you can rag on 2E all you want, but not having rules for everything makes things harder for some things and less hard for others. The problem is that not even codified rules sets have rules for every action, you want to do something cool, but very cinematic, people who are used to the rules say "Can't do that." Why? "Because it isn't in the rules.". Now, these are extremes, but I've seen both.
Actually, 4e
does have a rule for everything that is not a combat challenge:
(1) work out whether or not the action is possible (given considerations of genrre, tier, PC capability from the point of view of the fiction, etc);
(2) if the answer to (1) is yes, then set a DC using the DC-by-level chart (this may or may not be part of a skill challenge, depending on whether or not the GM takes the view that the action being attempted is scene-worthy in itself);
(3) resolve the skill check/skill challenge in accordance with the rules for such - make a check, apply adjustments for fictional advantage, power expenditure, etc (which in some cases may make success automatic), determine success/failure.
This is very similar to the rule(s) of Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, and Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic (all of which have the same sort of rule for everything). And it's not "codified" at all.
Now if by
everything you mean
every possible combat manoeuvre then the situation is a bit different. Every character does have a list of codified abilities. But there is also a very robust set of improvisation rules.
What's the DC to blow a demon through a timber wall using Thunderwave? AD&D doesn't tell me. 5e doesn't tell me. 4e does - pick the DC of the DC-by-level table and make an Arcana check.
Now maybe there are crappy GMs out there (including players acting as backseat GMs) who want to block an interesting action like that. I don't see how 2nd ed AD&D makes any difference to that temperament - just as creativity is a property of the player, so is being a boring railroader - but 4e actually (i) has a section that discusses how to adjudicate these things, and (ii) has the system resources (DC-by-level and damage-by-level charts) to deliver.
EDIT: Here's another take on the issue, one that's been suggested to me quite a bit in recent threads:
If "action resolution" really means nothing more than
the GM decides what happens, then what is the role of the player? Apparently, to
make suggestions to the GM. Only the GM is actually playing the game!
