4e does have a chart for improvised actions, though it's based on scaled DCs and "genre logic" rather than on "objective" DCs.
Which, as far as I know, depends largely on DM fiat to set the actual DCs (not great for player agency, in my opinion) or say what can even be attempted (also not great for player agency, in my opinion).
I'm not familiar with M&M other than by reputation, but I have been given the impression by some posts I've seen about it that a lot of the gonzo is introduced via its Hero/Action(?) Point mechanic, which seems to be more about "genre logic" than objective DCs.
The mechanic gives you some narrative control by allowing you to exercise some story power. They do things like allow you to reroll (minimum of 11-20 on the d20), eliminate fatigue, gain a feat momentarily, expand a power for a turn, etc. At the GM's permission, you can also use them for other purposes (I let my players say "I conveniently have this on hand" by spending a Hero Point, for example).
But, the uses are usually rather well defined, and generally only grant "gonzo" effects by utilizing the system. For example, you might use a Hero Point to expand your mind reading ability to blast somebody's mind (the mechanics on how to do this are clear and laid out), but it's only gonzo because the powers were gozno to begin with, not because the Hero Point made them that way.
Whether or not that impression is accurate, my feeling - and it's based on experience, not a priori conceptual reasoning - is that one you are using objective DCs adjudicating the gonzo elements of D&D-ish high fantasy becomes harder, and the overall pressure is towards conservatism, because reality is the baseline for the setting of objective DCs.
This is a good point. I suppose there could be different charts for each level of genre (gritty to gonzo), but that'd be cumbersome. While a rules light system handles this and gritty well, it doesn't give much reliable control over shaping the story to the players (without DM permission).
For example, how easy is it for someone to shove their hands into a forge and hold a red-hot artefact still as magical (as well as mundane) energy builds, and dwarven artificers try and grasp it with their tongs? My feeling is that in the real world that's impossible, or very close to. And then the pressure is on to look for abilities (or spells) that give magical protection against heat, and the like - and then we're out of the realm of improvisational gonzo and into the realm of operational play and the management of magical resources.
It doesn't need to become management of magical resources (it need not consume resources), but it is more operational in nature (my preferred method of player agency in fantasy gaming). Obviously this is a strong area where our tastes diverge.
I don't see any difference - as far as this particular issue is concerened - between setting DCs by reference to level, and setting them by reference to "objective" factors.
And I don't see any difference between combat and non-combat, either.
I do see a difference.
With "objective" DCs, a player can look at the book, see that the DC is 15, see that his bonus is +7, and make an informed decision on whether or not he can make that check. And, very importantly, he can do this in every game he plays in that runs close to RAW. It's a safe assumption for him.
With "scaling" DCs, a player needs to hope that his DM allows him to perform an action (you'd say "no" if the PC was heroic and not paragon), and then is at his mercy as to the DC (you made it a Hard DC).
Sure, if the DC is 35 and he only gets +10, he can't make it; that's as good as a "no" from the DM. However, the difference is that he
knows what his PC is capable of and isn't capable of
without having to get permission from the DM. This enables him, as a player, to reliably shape the story by utilizing his reliable abilities against DCs he is well aware of as a player. It's not reliant on the DM, and there's much, much less "Mother May I" approach to this style of play.
So in classic D&D, or in BW, the GM assigns a monster AC and hp (or, in BW, an armour rating and injury thresholds) based on "objective" factors. When the players (via their PCs) come to deal with the monster, they can either try to infer to the numbers from the GM's description, or they can muck in, have a go and learn by trial and error. (Perhaps there are also "monster knowledge" mechanics that mediate between a PC knowing the fictional state of affairs and a player knowing its mechanical expression.)
Well, kind of, yes (my game utilizes things like Knowledges and the Assess skill to determine DCs, uncover facts, and the like, so as to give more information to the PC in-game, and the player out-of-game).
If we turn away from monsters to (say) jumping a pit or climbing a wall, you can describe it to the players with enough precision that they can identify the objective factors that will set a DC (this is how BW approaches it - and it is taken for granted that it is the GM who has ultimately authority over DC-setting, though players are entitled to ask for one advantage die if they can point to some relevant advantage in the way they have narrated their PC's approach to the task; the player isn't actually told the DC until s/he has committed his/her PC to the action, at which point it is too late to pull out). Or, you can tell the players "that looks easy" or "that looks hard" - or even just state the DC - and again they can infer to the difficulty of the task for their PCs.
This, however, strikes me as a lesser form of player agency, because the DCs aren't usually as transparent, nor, more importantly, do they seem as reliable. And reliable DCs top transparent DCs when it comes to player agency.
For me, player agency is not about transparency of DCs as such - I use a range of approaches to DC disclosure, sometime relying on the players to infer them, sometimes stating them outright, my general goal being to keep the excitement of the game alive.
I do the same. Sometimes I'll say "the DC is
X" when they're going to do something like climb a wall, other times I won't say what the DC is when they need to negotiate with the guard captain.
Again, though, if the players know the DC to climb
these sorts of walls (with modifiers for
these different conditions) are
these DCs, then they can reliably build a PC that can climb well. If the formula for negotiating is known to the players, they can reliably guestimate what the DC might be, and then judge whether or not to take the risk based on that knowledge (whether you metagame to make this decision is a side issue; you can easily use a mechanic like a Knowledge or Assess check to gather the "DC" in game).
By giving reliable DCs with solid rules on how to hit those DCs, you empower the player to reliably shape the story in the way that they chose to express their interest. That is, if they've invested in negotiation skills, then they obviously would like to engage the game on at least that level, and they can do so reliably by using "objective" DCs.
For me, it's about the players being confident (i) that if they engage the action resolution mechanics they have a meaningful chance (and, for me, this is what level-based scaling achieves
Sometimes. You said that you would have said "no" to your player if they were heroic tier.
Yes, players can use even untrained skills with a chance of success, but the viability of that has been contested (one PC might get -1 to an untrained check to another PC's +10 bonus), and it can remain valid with an "objective" system if the DCs don't scale too high. My players often engage in skills they're not heavily invested in, they just don't expect the level of success that they'd get if they invested more.
I think the RC formulation is a recipe for suspending the action resolution mechanics, for railroading, and for the overriding of player agency.
I agree that it can definitely lead that direction. Again, it's why I like "objective" DCs; everyone knows where they stand, and by letting the dice fall where they may, you can have a very enjoyable game where everyone can reliably affect the story in the ways they intend to. There is no reliance on the DM to allow you to thrust your hands into the forge; on my end, I'd rather look up the Strength check DCs, check my Strength score, and then try it after knowing my luck (probably gauged in-game through a skill check).
Obviously it's a different approach from what you prefer, but it clearly allows for story control in the hands of the player, in my mind. And that's one reason I really, really like it. As always, play what you like
