Can you say what you mean by "narrative"?
In most RPGs, the basic process of play is that a player declares an action which in some fashion engages the shared fiction, and then a check (or comparable resolution process) is established and undertaken. Common examples are things like "I poke the floor in front of me with my 10' pole" or "I raise my hand in a signal of peace to the goblins" or "I cast a fireball spell".
In many RPGs, there are some actions whose declation in the fiction more-or-less equates to performing a mechanical move in the game. In Gygax's AD&D, for instance, declaring "I listen at the door" enlivens a particular mechanical process (which contrasts with "I poke the floor in front of me with my 10' pole"). In 5e, declaring "I attack the goblin with my sword" or "I shoot the goblin with Magic Missiles" enlivens a particular mechanical process (the combat rules, and the casting rules, respectively). In most RPGs, there are also actions whose declaration enlivens no particular process; or envlivens a very generic process like "The referee determines the outcome" or "The referee will determine a throw that must be made." Moldvay Basic and Classic Traveller in particular have a lot of this.
4e's generic process is a bit less open-ended than Moldvay Basic and Classic Traveller: if the referee determines that a throw must be made, by default it will be made on a d20, will involve adding a stat or perhaps skill bonus, and will be against a DC selected from a DC-by-level chart. What makes it fiction first is that the mechanics establish an abstract structure (at this PC level the appropriate DC is such-and-such) but don't peg any particular fiction to that structure. The fiction is given elsewhere, prior to the mechanics. This is why you can do stuff with 4e that can't easily be done with Moldvay Basic, like compression the default paragon fiction into the mechanics of upper heroic (which the Neverwinter supplement did) or extending the default paragon ficition into the mechanics of epic (which is what the Dark Sun supplements did).
To me, 5e does not seem to present an abstract mathematical structure onto which prior fiction is then appeneded. It doesn't have the mechanisms that I associate with such a structure, which in 4e are the DC-by-level chart, the corresponding creature build charts, the notion of "minionisation", etc. And it seems to have the mechanisms that I associate with a pegging of particular fiction to particular mechanics, like creatures whose mechanical specification is constant across all levels, and DCs which seem to be presented as "objective" rather than "subjective" - which in this thread has been reinforced by the suggestion that the way you gate something against a 1st level PC is by setting the DC at 27: that's mechanics before fiction, not vice versa.
By "narrative" here you seem to mean "genre" and other associated aspects of fiction (tone, tropes, etc). But that doesn't go to the question I am asking about adjudication. Again, and to reiterate, if the way you gate things against 1st level PCs is by setting DCs that are mechanically impossible foe them, that is mechanics first, not fiction first. The mechanics are determining the feasibility of that action declaration, not the fiction.
That's not the example at issue, though. No one has suggested that the way in which 4e empowers upper level martial PCs is by allowing the GM to say "yes" without requiring a roll. The dicussion has been about the methodology for setting rolls, and in particular whether the DC set for Konan's player is the same as the DC set for the player of a 1st level fighter.
To me, this text appears to imply that DCs are "objecive" rather than "subjective" - mechanics first rather than fiction first in the sense I have set out in this post.
In 4e if there's no chance for an action to succeed then no roll should take place. That's not a very distinctive princple.
But as far as the GM decides, I'm asking what principles are expected to guide a GM in this respect. The main answer this thread has supplied is martial PCs can't do supernatural things. This has been reinforced by references to bounded accuracy, which imply that DCs are "objective" so that if the GM sets (say) a DC 20 for the 15th level PC then that is what the DC would be for a 1st level PC also.
Am I wrong? Are there actual play examples to be given where the action was judged impossible for a 1st level PC but DC 15 (and so definitely feasible) for a 15th level PC?
