I did hesitate before using the term, but it seemed to be how it's colloquially used on these boards. I did not mean to offend you, if I did. (I don't think I did, but I thought I'd make it clear.)
No offence taken at all! (And it was obvious that none was intended.)
I'll come back to this below.
using Nagol's method of giving concrete examples beforehand, this is used to good effect to establish the genre you want
I think play in my group is helped by the fact that (with some changing but always overlapping membership) it's been the same group for 15+ years.
In a group of strangers one might want to look at different techniques. And I would think examples might be part of that.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, here, or have an inconsistent view of the issue because I both play and DM, but I do see 'player agency' as a desireable thing we need more of in games like D&D (games traditionally lacking in it, I guess you could say), I don't see there being some horrible tyrany of the DM that needs to be overcome, with player agency as the tool for doing so. Rather, I see players and DMs both needing to have tools to shape the RPG experience in meaningful ways that are fun for them, and enhance, or at least don't ruin, the play experience for everyone.
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ite in my view about the role of the GM (strong scene framing, but one-among-many when it comes to resolution of those scenes, with the resultant fiction emerging out of the choices, as mediated by the action resolution mechanics, that everyone at the table makes).
Part of what sometimes frustrates me on these boards is that posters are somewhat shy about stating their own preferences self-consciously, while at the same time very quick to project those preferences as if they were, or at least should, be universally shared.
In the context of discussion about a "unifying" edition, that can be especially frustrating.
In the current discussion, there's nothing remotely objectionable about JC querying any "mother may I" aspects of my approach to action resolution. There's a range of techniques here, all of which give the GM a slightly different role in relation both to mechanics and fiction. And at a somewhat meta-level, there's a range of perceptions about those roles too. For instance, when I think about the objective DCs that JC has advocated for in this thread, I think of a high degree of GM control over framing not only the story logic of the situation (the opposition, what thematic buttons might be pressed, etc) but also the details of the fiction (because by setting up the situation so as to yield objective DCs, operationally better and worse options are created, and - at least in my experience - these can tend to dominate over other evaluative features of the choice-situation for players). Conversely, I see the approach I've been advocating for (genre logic and scaled DCs adjudicated ultimately by the GM) as leaving the players more room to shape the details of the fiction, and hence its consequences.
Which of us is correct? Like in all matters of interpretation, it's very hard to tell! And given that JC and I will probably never meet in person, let alone play together, what does it even matter! What's worthwhile about the discussion, in my view, is getting a richer sense of the range of approaches to play, the way they can be tweaked to achieve various goals and effects, and thinking about the range of possible designs that might support or undermine those various approaches.
Likewise with the issue of "GM tyrrany" vs "player agency". I've got strong views on that. These are based partly on my own experiences of GMing problems I've encountered and mistakes I've made - in particular, of letting too much of the weight of the fiction rest on the GM's shoulders, and the campaign floundering as a result. These are based also on experiences I've had under other GMs, especially in the 2nd ed era, of there in effect being two games happening at the table - the one the GM was trying to run, with whatever "story" he had in mind, and the one that the players, including me, were running - which, because we were a large group of (from memory) 7 people, could happen to a large extent without needing the GM's help. In this case, the GM eventually tried to take back control by shifting the whole campaign into the future via some time travel chicanery, as a result rendering most of the stuff that we players had built up ourselves irrelevant. Not long after that I left the campaign, and I think the campaign as a whole didn't survive too much longer.
In these experiences, the issue is (I think) very obviously not about GMs trying to screw over players (which is how I sometimes see it put). To use my own language from upthread, it's about the degree of domination the GM is asserting over the fictional content introduced into the game (and thereby, at least indirectly, also control over the theme and evaluation that supervenes on that content). My own experience tells me that problems here arise not out of malice on anyone's part, but because the game lacks, or fails to support, the techniques that will let this control be devolved from GM to players without degenerating into round-robin storytelling or a mere war between participants over fiat, neither of which looks much like a traditional RPG at all.
Others who have had different experiences would naturally see things differently. Others who want different experiences also would naturally see things differently (in Cthulhu one-shots, for example, I'm very happy to let the GM dominate the fiction, with my job as player being to experience the horror and to add the colour of playing out my own PCs decreasing sanity).
Once again, what I'm looking for in these sorts of discussions isn't to change other people's approaches to play, but to try and think about the range of approaches, and how different designs work with them.
I think we need forthright honesty (like JC calling out "mother may I" when he sees it) combined with reasonable humility and a recognition of diverse preferences. And a readiness to talk frankly about the way different mechanics produce different effects in play for different groups, when used in a range of ways for a range of goals. Thanfully, there are a number of posters here who will do so, even if there are others who have a tendency to push things towards derailment.
