The swinginess of low levels.

[ExploderWizard]

But, I think this is where the problem lies. You interpreted the rules in a very, very generous way - automatic successes when you think it's appropriate. Of course, the rules disagree with you, but, apparently we're now into playing the "dueling versions of editions" game. :/

I have not mentioned automatic success thus far, merely a higher or lower than RAW chance depending on circumstances.

Automatic success should be possible in some situations. If a group of 10 orcs were in the middle of a noisy feast then I would consider that an automatic success situation.

When the PCs make undue amounts of noise then there is a chance of drawing attention via extra wandering monster checks. Its only fair that extra noisy monsters advertise their presence to the PCs in a similar way.

 

[Lanefan]

There are some places - and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] quoted one of them above - where the 1e DMG needs a layer of common sense applied.

As DM, I know the situation - how loud the noises might be, how thick the door is, what distance might be involved, etc. - and if in that knowledge I think that I, as in the real-world me, could hear the noise then it's a dead-shot certainty the PCs can hear it provided they shut up and listen. And they might still hear it even if they don't try to - that's what perception checks are for.

I only use the "listen" mechanic when the noise is faint enough to require more than just a casual listen; or when it's intermittent enough that a casual listen might miss it.

Lan-"can I hear you yet?"-efan

 

[B.T.]

Here's how I would handle listen checks:

• Does it make sense for the character to automatically hear noise? Then the character doesn't need to make a check.
• Does the character want to hear something particularly quiet or difficult to hear? Then the character can make a check to see how much he hears.
• Make a Wisdom check with appropriate modifiers. Generally, it can be assumed that characters are always taking 10 on this check unless unusual circumstances prevent them from doing so.

14 or less: You can hear the sounds of normal conversation behind the average door, but you cannot make out distinct phrases.
15-19: You can hear quiet noises behind the average door (soft snoring, whispering), or you can perceive distinct words and phrases of normal conversation.
20-24: You can hear the faintest noises behind the average door (the scratching of a pen or the rustling of sheets). You can clearly make out conversation of people in the room.
25+: You can hear as if you were standing in the room. You can even hear things like a boiling pot of soup or a crackling flame.

 

[GhostBear]

And that means going from a 10-15% chance of success to automatic success? That's a bit extreme don't you think?

Try this experiment.

Ask two friends to come over. Put them in your bathroom and ask them to talk to eachother at a normal level. Close the door. Stand next to the door and listen. As they talk to eachother, try to listen. Do you hear conversation?

If not, I highly recommend seeing an ear doctor.

I think that in many cases an automatic success is perfectly reasonable when it comes to talking. It may be difficult to make out some of the words sometimes, depending on how loud people are talking or if the door is particularly thick, etc., but it's not difficult by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Mercutio01]

Try this experiment.

Ask two friends to come over. Put them in your bathroom and ask them to talk to eachother at a normal level. Close the door. Stand next to the door and listen. As they talk to eachother, try to listen. Do you hear conversation?

If not, I highly recommend seeing an ear doctor.

I think that in many cases an automatic success is perfectly reasonable when it comes to talking. It may be difficult to make out some of the words sometimes, depending on how loud people are talking or if the door is particularly thick, etc., but it's not difficult by any stretch of the imagination.

As much as it pains me to agree with Hussar, that's not a valid comparison, considering modern door construction. The better comparison is to find someplace that has full wooden doors of the type of construction in place in the 1700s or so (I grew up in one - the house my parents own was built in 1769) and try the same experiment. The solid oak front door to the downstairs cuts out so much noise that you honestly wouldn't know there was someone downstairs unless they were talking several decibel levels over normal conversation.

I do think AD&D (2E had pretty much the same rules) is a little too restrictive on listen/hear noise, but per the rules, they're pretty much what Hussar stated. I've never played that way, but that's what they say.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Now, I'm not sure where JRRNeiklot is getting his "66%" from, but, hey, maybe it's a different edition.

Admittedly, it requires an elf or halfling, but once again, it's in the book you make assumptions about but refuse to read.

 

[Hussar]

Admittedly, it requires an elf or halfling, but once again, it's in the book you make assumptions about but refuse to read.

Well, it's not in the section about listening, which does actually list elves and halflings, and it's not under thief abilities. So, where would I find this ruling?

This is what really starts me spinning around in these conversations. If I'm wrong about the mechanics, fair enough, point me to the page and I'll go away. And, if there actually was a page to point to, typically 1e grognards would be the first to do so to rub my nose in it.

But, when you point to a page where the rules actually say something different than what people claim, suddenly it's, "There are some places - and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] quoted one of them above - where the 1e DMG needs a layer of common sense applied." And it drives me nuts. Sure, you can play the card of, "Well a GOOD Dm would fix this problem" but, it doesn't change the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

We started down this road because of the claim about "smart" play where PC's would be able to control when and where encounters occur. I countered that 1st level PC's do not have the resources to do this and could actually quote chapter and verse to prove my point.

The goalposts then suddenly sprout rollerskates and leave the building. Oh, it's not that PC's don't have the resources, I'm just too incompetent of a DM to adjust the rules to make it ... what... more realistic? More believable? More of how you want to play the game? More like whatever version of D&D you think is the way it should be played?

The inherent one-true-wayism in the statements above are mind boggling. Mind boggling because I honestly don't think that people recognize what they are doing. Sure, I could change the game to suit my tastes. Yet, funnily enough, whenever that argument gets trotted out about any other edition, it's suddenly no good and doesn't work. The double standards that get applied are wonderous to see in action.

 

[Lanefan]

But, when you point to a page where the rules actually say something different than what people claim, suddenly it's, "There are some places - and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] quoted one of them above - where the 1e DMG needs a layer of common sense applied."

For clarity, that's my statement in quotations above, not JRRNeiklot's to whom you were otherwise (I think) replying.

And it drives me nuts. Sure, you can play the card of, "Well a GOOD Dm would fix this problem" but, it doesn't change the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

We started down this road because of the claim about "smart" play where PC's would be able to control when and where encounters occur. I countered that 1st level PC's do not have the resources to do this and could actually quote chapter and verse to prove my point.

The goalposts then suddenly sprout rollerskates and leave the building. Oh, it's not that PC's don't have the resources, I'm just too incompetent of a DM to adjust the rules to make it ... what... more realistic? More believable? More of how you want to play the game? More like whatever version of D&D you think is the way it should be played?

The inherent one-true-wayism in the statements above are mind boggling. Mind boggling because I honestly don't think that people recognize what they are doing. Sure, I could change the game to suit my tastes. Yet, funnily enough, whenever that argument gets trotted out about any other edition, it's suddenly no good and doesn't work.

Not at all. You can (and, I'll hazard a guess, have) change any edition to suit your tastes.

The problem is that - for better or worse - some editions are more difficult to change than others, and more prone to having a change to rule A knock something sideways with rule B and interact poorly with rules C and D.

1e is relatively easy to change, thus it's much likelier on finding a problem with 1e RAW the first answer you'll get from anyone is "well, just fix it". And that's not one-true-way-ism; if anything it's the opposite, as your fix to a given problem is highly likely to be different from mine because we have different tastes, different groups, and different experiences.

Question: anyone know if the 1e DMG listening tables were ever re-jigged in a Dragon article?

Lanefan

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, it's not in the section about listening, which does actually list elves and halflings, and it's not under thief abilities. So, where would I find this ruling?

I was actually referring to their chance to surprise.

From pg. 16 of the 1st ed. AD&D Players Handbook:

If alone and not in metal armor (or if well in advance- 90′ or more – of a party which does not consist entirely of elves and/or halflings) an elven character moves so silently that he or she will surprise (q.v.) monsters 66 2/3% (d6, 1 through 4) of the time unless some portal must be opened in order to confront the monster. In the latter case the chance for surprise drops to 33 1/3% (d6, 1-2).

 

[Hussar]

For clarity, that's my statement in quotations above, not JRRNeiklot's to whom you were otherwise (I think) replying.
Not at all. You can (and, I'll hazard a guess, have) change any edition to suit your tastes.

The problem is that - for better or worse - some editions are more difficult to change than others, and more prone to having a change to rule A knock something sideways with rule B and interact poorly with rules C and D.

1e is relatively easy to change, thus it's much likelier on finding a problem with 1e RAW the first answer you'll get from anyone is "well, just fix it". And that's not one-true-way-ism; if anything it's the opposite, as your fix to a given problem is highly likely to be different from mine because we have different tastes, different groups, and different experiences.

Question: anyone know if the 1e DMG listening tables were ever re-jigged in a Dragon article?

Lanefan

And, Lanefan, I totally agree. And if it was presented this way, I'd shut up and go away. But, it's been a couple of pages of posts now of people telling me that the problem doesn't even exist in the first place.

I was actually referring to their chance to surprise.

From pg. 16 of the 1st ed. AD&D Players Handbook:

If alone and not in metal armor (or if well in advance- 90′ or more – of a party which does not consist entirely of elves and/or halflings) an elven character moves so silently that he or she will surprise (q.v.) monsters 66 2/3% (d6, 1 through 4) of the time unless some portal must be opened in order to confront the monster. In the latter case the chance for surprise drops to 33 1/3% (d6, 1-2).

And this is relevant to the conversation how? Considering we're talking about listening at doors and the like?