Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[pemerton]

Simply playing 3E/4E as written.

" So whats in this room?"

" Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"

Push button play.

This is exactly how I feel about Diplomacy, as well.

In my view the fundamental issue with these 3E skills is that the system isn't clear on what their mechanical functions is: action resolution? or scene re-framiong?

As scene-reframing they work well enough - the player, with a good roll, can now reframe the scene into one in which s/he knows what the hidden items in the room are; or in which she is confronted by a helpful rather than a hostile NPC. Of course, this takes a degree of scene framing authority away from the GM, which for some playstyles at least (eg mine) is not a desired thing.

As action resolution I think they are rathouse, especially Diplomacy, because they do not contain within their own systems for mechanical resolution provision for the GM to narrate complications and conseqeunces short of scene-framing. 4e's solution to this issue is the skill challenge. I don't know of any other solution which both (i) maintains these skills, and (ii) makes them relevant to action resolution rather than scene-reframing.

A further problem for 3E is that it has no discussion in the rulebooks of these issues, and hence offers no solution to players and GMs who find themselves colliding over how they understand and implement these skills.

 

[pemerton]

One of the core conflicts of an RPG is that you are trying to playas the character but using the character's attributes and feates. This is the role of rules. When you make John jump over the hole, you are using John's abilty to jump and imagining John jumping. The rules or rulings determine whether or not John makes the jump and by how much. Because John is not you, there needs to be a frame of reference for the player to think like John.

<snip>

"Why would I make John jump if I don't know how far he can usually jump." That is one of the core sliding scales of RPG. How informed do you the players of their characters' abililty without giving them a feeling that you are locking all their actions down into the character sheet.

A related problem is this:

* Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things;

* While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not really sub-optimal at all;

* Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?​

D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.

This makes me think that there's a different of underlying assumption as to the role of the DM and their power in the game world. I guess I'm relatively traditional and see the DM's power as absolute

<snip>

the DM is not only a rules referee, but also the story teller. I find myself fudging things all the time if I think it improves the quality of the game experience.

It seems that there's a deeper issue here, which has to do with the basic assumptions about the nature of GM power. Is it absolute or not? Is the DM the opposition and the rule books the referee, or is the DM the "god narrator"? Etc.

<snip>

The right question might not be whether or not the DM has absolute power because, as I said to Balesir, even if he doesn't technically, he does in all practical sense.

I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.

The rules of an RPG might say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does not say that.

I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing. And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - which does not limit the way in which a GM can frame a scene but does constrain the extent to which the GM can escalate it (eg via reinforcements) as it unfolds.

Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.

On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.

Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players some resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM.

4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM.

Imagine renting an apartment. It has limitations and structure (constraints) by virtue of the shape of the rooms, the square footage, etc. Imagine that apartment as empty - you can do anything with it, decorate it in any number of ways - within the limitations of the physical space that it allows, of course. You might think about different themes - Japanese or kitsch or arts & crafts. Now imagine that same apartment pre-furnished. You can move things around a bit, and add a piece here and there, but its pretty much pre-determined. A further extreme would be sub-leasing an apartment that you can't change at all.

I think 4e is sort of like a pre-furnished apartment.

What old editions of D&D do, in my mind, is say "if you want a chair, ask the DM for one - but be careful how you use it, because we encourage the DM to make your chair idiosyncratic in both form and architecture. Don't try standing on it, for instance - the DM may be assuming it has only three legs".

Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are.

As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players.

To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.

Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.

For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.

 

[howandwhy99]

What D&D lost is open ended player actions, while still retaining rigorously taut game play. There is no longer a game board behind the screen. No rules for its generation. No pattern for the players to engage in mastering through play. At best we have design philosophies aimed at either player innovation or player strategy rather than early D&D's never copied design supporting both.

[sblock]The wonderful thing about games is that they are not stories. Living amongst a gaming culture currently trapped in narrative absolutism can cause one to lose gaming for storytelling, but you shouldn't blur life into featureless monochrome, if you can help it. Reject ideologues when you run across them. There is no framing of a scene in games. No expression of narratives. No creation of shared stories. No resolution mechanics. No conflicts. No collaboration. No metagaming rules. No fictional character performances. No fictional settings. No fictional personas. No immersion. No fluff. No referee fiat. None of those things are relevant to games and RPGs in particular.[/sblock]

 

[Mercurius]

D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.

You speak of Fiat like its an approach taken in all situations; I see it as more of being when needed to improve or augment the game. As I said before, let's say the big bad monster is on its last legs with 76 HP and the rogue scores a critical hit for 67 HP of damage; I'm going to "fudge" that and offer a kill - and not tell the players that the monster "really" had 76 HP, because in my view it didn't "really" have 76 HP - it had 67.

I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.

Yes, of course. But what I mean by "in a practical sense" is that the GM can always find his way around something if he really wants. Thus my Tarrasque example. A GM, in my view, can also create a reason for something happening or not happening and not have to explain to the players via the rules - citing page numbers and such. That's the GM's prerogative. I would add...as long as he has a good reason to do what he chooses to do, a GM can do anything. Of course this opens the door for GM abuse, but if the GM is a reasonably mature human being that shouldn't be a problem.

The rules of an RPG might say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does not say that.

As far as I can tell, all editions of D&D have said that, that "Rule Zero" is in effect (DM Fiat).

What you describe, to me, places the GM as more of another player, the player who plays "everyone else," and less as the story-teller.

Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.

I think this is the heart of the matter, of our disagreement, and where (I think) you veer from traditional D&D - in every edition. The GM cannot "cheat." Or at least, they can emply Rule Zero to alter a situation as they deem necessary.

This doesn't mean that a GM should do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to, especially when a player is being annoying. It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but not because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.

So I don't think a GM can cheat as much as break the "contract of trust," so to speak, but being biased or unfair.

So I think the difference here as to do with both the nature of GM power, and whether rules are scene as absolute laws or guidelines - or to what degree. I've never played in a game of D&D in which the rules were absolute laws, or the DM didn't employ Rule Zero (Fiat) to some extent (the trick, though, is doing so without the player's realizing it).

On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.

Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players some resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM.

First of all, I don't see how the two definitions you offer are contradictory. But the latter part is perhaps where we disagree, and where I say that even if these resources lead to "binding" outcomes, the GM can still find a way around that if he really wants to, thus has absolute power in a practical sense.

This is why I'm putting emphasis not on rules-as-absolute, but on what could be called the social covenant, the "contract of trust." The players are deciding to trust the judgment and fairness of the GM, and the GM is in turn pledging to be fair and just.

4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM.

I'm open either way, but I still think there is some relationship between "rules weight" and imagination, at least in some facets of the game.

Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are.

None of which is antithetical to what I was saying above...the difference being that I reserve the right (as GM) to use Fiat if I deem it necessary to the improvement of the game, and the overall enjoyment of the players.

As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players.

To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that @Hussar often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.

I disagree. Its just that it requires the players to think imaginatively, the GM to think on the fly, to provide some kind of target number for the player to roll against.

You can still do this in 4e, but the problem is that page 42 is in the background, and behind the "density" of the AEDU system.

Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.

(i) Is not entirely true in that I'm not saying it is as much "limited" as it employs a system of options that effectively lead to a de-emphasis on improvisation.

(ii) As I said above, I disagree with this. PCs can do anything in every edition of D&D. A good DM/GM will allow a PC to try anything they can imagine. Just like a good teacher will never say, "Bad question," a good GM will never say "You can't do that." They might say, "That will be very, very difficult, but go ahead and try..."

For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.

It may boil down to what degree you and I prefer to have resources defined. I prefer less definition, which I feel allows for (or encourages) more improvisation.

 

[Herschel]

So much wrong with this post. We couldn't make it past level 7 in 4E before we gave up at the sheer stupidity of the mechanics. Even in BECMI we managed better than that.

Maybe the mechanics were not where the problem exists. A whole lot of people seemed to like and use them just fine.

 

[Herschel]

I am a great fan of Boorman's Excalibur. But I don't think it tells us anything about the relationship between OSR RPGs, 4e and imagination.

It is virtually impossible to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using Moldvay Basic. I have complained about this frequently on these boards - the Foreword to Moldvay, with its example of the warrior dispatching the dragon tyrant with a sword gifted by a mysterious cleric, promises fantasy romance; but the only part of the mechanics not dedicated to exploration (and built-environment exploration at that, with all the stuff about doors and traps and light sources) is the Reaction Table, and even that is framed primarily in terms of encounters in dungeon between quasi-military units.

Conversely, it is rather easy to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using 4e, provided that the players build the right sorts of PCs (more warlords, paladins and avengers; not too many halfing rogue worshippers of Avandra) and the GM frames the right sorts of encounters (avoid ankhegs, kruthiks and bulettes).

This is because 4e is obviously influenced by indie RPG design, or at least some strands thereof: there's not a lot of Over the Edge in 4e (contrast 13th Age, where Tweet reprises several elements of OtE for the pleasure of an audience mostly ignorant of that earlier game); but there's more than a little bit of HeroWars/Quest, and of Ron Edwards's design ideas. Perhaps the single most important part of indie design to which 4e aspires (whether or not it always achieves) is to get rid of GM-created illusions, and to makes the stakes (i) real and (ii) transparent to the players.

The reasons for WotC's commercial decisions in relation to 4e I leave for others to work out - though I think it must be obvious to anyone that Essentials was an incredibly poorly conceived set of products, even if some of the individual design elements (especially the MV monsters) are very nicely done.

But 4e is not populated by "detailed descriptions" - nearly all its books are either lists of potential player build elements, or lists of potential antagonists for the GM to introduce. The only new, large scale action resolution subsystems introduced outside of the PHB and DMG are vehicle rules in Adventurers' Vault, and Martial Practices in Martial Power 2. I think nearly eveyone ignores the latter system, and I'm guessing vehicle rules aren't used that often either.

4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.

The main difference in resolution systems between 4e and a typical indie game is its mechanically incredibly heavy combat resolution system. (Though no heavier, I think, than some other systems like say Burning Wheel.) If you don't enjoy the detailed mechanical resolution of combat, 4e is probably not the game for you! But while admittedly my knowledge of WoW et al is 2nd hand, I don't see much similarity between 4e combat resolution and those systems. For instance, fictional positioning is key in 4e - and the whole of p 42 is built around that - but is not in a computer game.

The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").

The sort of "imagination" that you seem to be talking about is that of a player "imagining" what the ingame situation of the PC is like. I prefer not to have that be imagined. I prefer to have that be experienced. Of course it can't be experienced immediately, but I believe a good RPG can be designed so that the player experiences the at-table situation in a way that is comparable to, though obviously not immediately identical with, the PC's experience of the ingame situation. I think 4e does as good a job of this as any version of D&D - in fact, in my personal opinion, a better job.

I pulled this out because I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.

4e restores mechanical support for strong-willed fighters (because WIS is a secondary stat for many fighter builds, and the role of CON in hit point and surge numbers makes a high CON much less essential), and also restores FitM to many parts of the game, including its saving throw rules and also its rules for healing and for dying.

The only edition of D&D that permits scenes like that in Excalibur, where the arrival of Lancelot on the field of battle restores the fighting vigour of the troops, or that in Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when the memory of Arwen restores Aragorn to consciousness, is 4e with its inspriational healing.

None of this post is meant to imply that 4e is an RPG in the same category as Prince Valiant. But as far as editions of D&D are concerned, it's the closest thing there is.

This bears repeating.

 

[Herschel]

In my view the fundamental issue with these 3E skills is that the system isn't clear on what their mechanical functions is: action resolution? or scene re-framiong?

As scene-reframing they work well enough - the player, with a good roll, can now reframe the scene into one in which s/he knows what the hidden items in the room are; or in which she is confronted by a helpful rather than a hostile NPC. Of course, this takes a degree of scene framing authority away from the GM, which for some playstyles at least (eg mine) is not a desired thing.

As action resolution I think they are rathouse, especially Diplomacy, because they do not contain within their own systems for mechanical resolution provision for the GM to narrate complications and conseqeunces short of scene-framing. 4e's solution to this issue is the skill challenge. I don't know of any other solution which both (i) maintains these skills, and (ii) makes them relevant to action resolution rather than scene-reframing.

A further problem for 3E is that it has no discussion in the rulebooks of these issues, and hence offers no solution to players and GMs who find themselves colliding over how they understand and implement these skills.

I mostly agree here, but as action resolution they can work to move the story past more mundane scenarios also. If a group is on a dungeon crawl, taking time to describe teh actual search of every, single room can get rather tedious so using Search/Perception as a short cut can be good also. Narate after the roll not before.

 

[Aenghus]

This doesn't mean that a GM should do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to, especially when a player is being annoying. It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but not because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.

My main personal objection to the style you advocating is that I am bad at arguing, I know I'm bad at arguing, and don't like doing so in the first place, and I'm not alone in this. So making my entire RPG experience depend on ability to argue with the DM is a good way to to make my play experience less enjoyable, or ruin it.

(My way of coping in earlier editions was playing spellcasters, as spells were less likely to be arbitrarily vetoed than improvised actions being a limited resource. For me a blank page kills my imagination, I need contraints to provide structure and work within).

Noone wants to be excluded from the game they love. I think its the reason why threads like this draw so much energy, especially when preferences are in opposition.

My own experience running D&D is that the tastes of new players vary. A few players dislike mechanics in general and prefer to ignore them as much as possible. Most, though, appreciate at least some structure to inform their decision making.

 

[steeldragons]

A related problem is this:

* Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things;

* While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not really sub-optimal at all;

* Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?
​

D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.

Fair enough...as you say "for [you]."

"...the GM decides..." has always been a solution of D&D...as you state, "for [your] personal purposes" is not a concern of D&D...just as for my personal purposes is not a concern.

But and is a perfectly acceptable one. If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of systems where the GM is simply "the guy running the monsters/adversities/encounters" and has no province or authority to change what's happening in the game world. That is not...and I know this is inflammatory but I really see no other way to say it...D&D. It has always been part of the game...in my limited understanding of 4e, even 4e has, apparently, "page 42" [?].

I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense.

Because in D&D, quite simply, they do [the DM does].

The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.

Yes...and no. The DM can adhere to "the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster." Maybe the party has more weapons or magic or whatever and the encounter is going badly, alternately, "the GM ignores that and/or gives the monster more hit points" is just as legitimate a way to play than "follow the rules." D&D has never been a "follow the rules to the letter." Even with the exactly endless rules of certain editions, it has not been this. Before an edition war breaks out about old school and whatever, 1e...ok?...1e I played for years and years...there are "rules" for weapons' reach...for initiative/weapon "speed"...never used them. Never saw them used in play. We played 1e...and then 2e...to the letter...but weapon reach/speed? Nope. Initiative took care of this. You go first or they go first. That was all. Were we playing "wrong"? I sincerely don't believe so...Everyone knew the "rules" everyone had a good time. That is all that matters...not "the rules say, the rules say, the rules say."

The rules of an RPG might say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does not say that.

See above...and enjoy! That is perfectly fine. That is your reference. No problem, eh? But do not say "this is what D&D should be!" It's not what D&D is. [I know, I know..."OneTueWayism"...but well, there it is.]

I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing.

No one says that it is.

And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - snip stuff

Thanks for, I suppose, making my point. That is Marvel Heroic...not D&D. No harm. No foul.

Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.

Ok...lemme try... the DM has no limits...the players do. they can certainly try to think "outside the [rules] box"...and I would assert a "good" [subjective] DM will allow things as makes sense. Now, an /dick/rat bastard DM can take advantage...on purpose!...But that is not necessarily a "good" [subjective] thing.

On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.

Then...I...um...???

there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.

For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.

AND, my final word here, is that that is the primordial difference in [the D&D game's] playstyles...or at least two very significant ones. One says that is "serving/improving/"bettering" and one says that is "subordinating/negating/destroying" the game. That makes the ideal of 5e, however appealing, of "One game to rule them all" completely impossible.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe the mechanics were not where the problem exists. A whole lot of people seemed to like and use them just fine.

No it was the mechanics. And I am not alone with the mass exodus to Pathfinder. Some 4E fans seem to have trouble accepting 4E was rejected because of the mechanics and most of that was the class mechanics in the PHB and the absurdities of healing surges and that is before one gets to combat length due to he hit point bloat and easy mode healing which slowed the game to a crawl. Kind of fun for one off type games but once the novelty value wears off you are in trouble. In 10 years or 20 years time I suspect 4E will be long forgotten. There will be no OSR type revival or successful 4E clone and I suspect 13th Age will be gone in a few years time as well.