D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[pemerton]

I'd like to focus on point c. In what way does the player face a decision point?

I'm not sure I've completely followed [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s analysis of the instance of play that he provided as an example, but I thought the decision was oriented towards the fiction: the player, confronted (via the GM's narration) with a threat to his/her PC's interests/desires, has to choose how his/her PC responds to the threat.

That choice will also have mechanical ramifications (eg it will determine which skill is used to determine whether the choice has good or bad results), and the player is expected to be keeping those ramifications in mind when choosing.

I think why it is being described as "a legitimate decision point" is because the choice the player makes at this moment, in response to this particular prompting from the GM (by the narration of a threat/obstacle) will determine a skill check. And the outcome of that skill check will have (i) a definite mechanical significance for determining whether or not the player (and thereby the PC) gets what s/he wants, and (ii) a definite fictional consequence which will shape the parameters for the GM's next episode of narration. (Up until the encounter is resolved one way or another.)

Based on [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s posts upthread, here are two examples of what I think he would count as "non-legitimate decision points" (to coin a phrase).

The first would be a player in AD&D 2nd ed saying "I want to use my Survival NWP to find a shelter", but there are no mechanics that connect that check to the Natural Shelter table. In this case, the only conduit between the player's action declaration (which is what it looks like, at least on the face of things) and the resolution of that declaration is GM fiat of some sort to bridge the two non-integrated mechanical subsystems. So the player's decision becomes subordinated to the GM's fiat.

The second would be a player, in a free-roleplaying style, describing his/her PC describing cutting brush and gathering leaves for beds, checking the cave for hibernating bears, etc, and there is no determination of whether the description of what is done is adequate or not to provide the children with proper shelter until the GM is satisfied that enough has been done. Again, I think this would be seen as the player's decisions being subordinated to GM fiat.

Also, I'll connect this discussion to something [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] has queried upthread, namely, the GM's authority to narrate complications. In Burning Wheel, the rulebook indicates quite clearly that, before the dice are rolled to resolve a check, the GM must state the consequences of failure. In the Adventure Burner (which is BW's analogue of a GM's guide), Luke Crane explains that he typically doesn't follow that rule because (i) the consequences of failure are often implicit in the scene as framed, particularly once the details of what the player is having his/her PC attempt have also been worked out, and (ii) his players trust him to be a fair GM.

Both in 4e GMing and in BW I alternate between stating clear consequences, and leaving it implicit, based roughly on how strong I think Luke Crane's factor (i) is in play. (I think factor (ii) is always in play - my players trust me - but sometimes it is still important for everyone to be crystal clear on what exactly is at stake.) I strongly suspect that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] takes a similar approach.

Even when consequences of failure are left implicit, I don't think illusionism is very likely or feasible. For instance, imagine if, in response to a failed check in the shelter skill challenge [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] were to frame the player into a social confrontation that (given the PC's stats) s/he probably can't win (eg "As you check the cave for its safety - Oops, failed Dungeoneering! - you fall through a hole in the floor and are surrounded by half-a-dozen angry goblins, crossbows pointed at you). If it had already been established that there were goblins in the caves, and that some of the caves had concealed holes in their floors, then this might be reasonable, and not particularly illusionist: the player, having a general sense of what's at stake in the caves, has decided to try her hand at Dungeoneering, and now it's failed and she reaps the consequences.

But if it hadn't been established that their are goblins in the caves, that the caves are treacherous, etc, then this is hardly illusionistic either: it's quite blatant! Depending on the table conventions for ultra-hard scene-framing it might be acceptable or not, but I don't see any illusionism taking place.

This is all a consequence of their being a "legitimate decision point" (as I understand that phrase). The occurrence of that point, and the mechanical procedures around it (check declared, made, and passed or failed), means that the GM's exercise of narrative authority - whether done well or poorly - is quite overt.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd like to focus on point c. In what way does the player face a decision point? Is the decision point to let the children go (and if so, what benefit is gained by that) or is it simply a matter of choosing the PC's best skill and trying to make that matter? Or something else that I'm missing?

I'll try to do my best to capture what the conversation would be if this was a home game at the table (rather than what is revealed of the conversation in a PBP which typically won't capture PMs, emails, or face to face aspects of the conversation). I try to arm my players with something resembling the quality of information that I think they would have if they were there, IRL, observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. If there is a question at all, they have a lot of access to the metagame (which people do as well IRL when they collate and extrapolate based on RL experience and proficiency!), to move things along. Another reason for this is that I like to err on the side of expedience in table handling time. I don't want to play 20 questions (at all) and certainly not when I feel that the player should already have said information. This is another reason why I allow my players to assume scene elements (eg in play it looks like they're just telling me that this or that mundane feature is present rather than the inverse). I try to give them just enough sensory information, and plenty of metagame information, to make an informed decision. If they need more, they might ask a clarifying question or they might just assume something and I'll pretty much universally just go with their assumption unless it is "out there" or "bad faith" (I don't recall the last time this was the case with people I've GMed.).

In the case below, as an analogue to AD&D, the player would have (a) the percentage chance to locate natural shelter, (b) the frequency/nature of random encounters (eg 1/turn or 1 per 3 turns), and (c) it would be rolled out on the table.

So let us say that she failed that encounter and it led to a combat with the hyenas where the kids were minionized. She would play herself, her bear, and the minion kids while I played the hyenas and the terrain. At that point, she would be down multiple surges (probably at least 4 of a total of 10 for the day), possibly a daily or so. Let us just say that none of the children perished in the conflict and the hyenas were routed. On with it:

---

Player: Once all the hyenas are confirmed dead, I gather the children together and soothe their frayed nerves. This place is clearly dangerous and moving around in the dead of night is quite a risk. It would be nice to rest and recover and try this again in the morning....but...

GM: ...correct, no Extended Rest capability yet. You can rest and recover once you've secured a place against the elements and against the threat of wild beasts, monsters, etc. You've now confirmed that this mountain is filled with danger and your prospects for safe shelter are clearly limited.

Player: I'm quite experienced in such locales. If we follow the river and take it dead down the mountain, it should either lead us to some river people or empty into a larger body of water with a coastal village. Doing it at night is not ideal however. What are the prospects mechanically?

GM: You're right. It isn't ideal at night. So you'd want to follow the river down the mountain at night in hopes of locating a village? I'd say complexity 3 SC with 1 additional Hard DC above normal. With that limited vision, going to be lots of opportunity for natural terrain hazards to come into play, to wind up in enemy terrirtory, or stumble monster lairs. Possibly find yourself at a dead-end where you have to backtrack completely...

Player: None of that sounds good. This immediate area is teeming with wild-life though. Lots of predators. What if we stick around here and keep looking for shelter to hole up for the night. On the slopes the worse we might get is probably a snake-bite or a dangerous bug sting. Up here, with this large watering hole, there are obviously lots of large predators that can outright devour me or the kids.

GM: Yeah, that's right. If you find a safe shelter, you could get an Extended Rest and stow the kids. Like you said, there will be much higher chance to be stalked or confronted (nested combat) by very dangerous wildlife up here in this thriving ecosystem. Given that we have established that your prospects have contracted, it is the dead of night, and this place is dangerous...still going to go with Complexity 1 Skill Challenge, but 2 Hard DCs instead of 0.

---

That is probably pretty close to capturing the conversation. Does that help?

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has it pretty much spot on. You've got metagame information which serves to expedite play (reduce handling time) and, honestly, in most cases overlaps with and better fleshes out what the 1st person orientation would be (especially by a proficient party). Then you've got fictional accompaniment, narrative implications, negotiation, and clarification which all together serve to inform the player on their approach to their next action-declaration. In this case, the obvious decision-points are for the player to either initiate another "look for shelter" or "rough it down the mountain" challenge. If she were to propose another avenue, then the conversation would canvass those prospects.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll try to do my best to capture what the conversation would be if this was a home game at the table (rather than what is revealed of the conversation in a PBP which typically won't capture PMs, emails, or face to face aspects of the conversation). I try to arm my players with something resembling the quality of information that I think they would have if they were there, IRL, observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. If there is a question at all, they have a lot of access to the metagame (which people do as well IRL when they collate and extrapolate based on RL experience and proficiency!), to move things along. Another reason for this is that I like to err on the side of expedience in table handling time. I don't want to play 20 questions (at all) and certainly not when I feel that the player should already have said information. This is another reason why I allow my players to assume scene elements (eg in play it looks like they're just telling me that this or that mundane feature is present rather than the inverse). I try to give them just enough sensory information, and plenty of metagame information, to make an informed decision. If they need more, they might ask a clarifying question or they might just assume something and I'll pretty much universally just go with their assumption unless it is "out there" or "bad faith" (I don't recall the last time this was the case with people I've GMed.).

My thought here is really "who knows much at all?" As a GM I don't assume I'm particularly knowledgeable in 2 senses. First of all I am just an ordinary person, I know a bit about some subjects, but nothing about others. I have some common sense, but any really significant question is quite likely to involve some factors outside my area of knowledge that I must perforce guess at. Secondly I don't know the circumstances perfectly. Albeit I am the GM, and @Saelorn will insist I must know EVERYTHING, the truth is I don't. I don't know exactly which wildlife lives on the side of this mountain, exactly how much underbrush there is, whether the rocks are crumbly, slippery, firm, etc. There is simply no way I could determine all of the thousands of relevant details ahead of time which might factor in. This is what dice are for. Its also a great opportunity for the player to inject some sort of detail into the scene (IE making a nature check and asserting that indeed there are many pine boughs available from the stunty pine trees found on the side of the mountain to make a shelter and fire from).

In the case below, as an analogue to AD&D, the player would have (a) the percentage chance to locate natural shelter, (b) the frequency/nature of random encounters (eg 1/turn or 1 per 3 turns), and (c) it would be rolled out on the table.

So let us say that she failed that encounter and it led to a combat with the hyenas where the kids were minionized. She would play herself, her bear, and the minion kids while I played the hyenas and the terrain. At that point, she would be down multiple surges (probably at least 4 of a total of 10 for the day), possibly a daily or so. Let us just say that none of the children perished in the conflict and the hyenas were routed. On with it:

---

Player: Once all the hyenas are confirmed dead, I gather the children together and soothe their frayed nerves. This place is clearly dangerous and moving around in the dead of night is quite a risk. It would be nice to rest and recover and try this again in the morning....but...

GM: ...correct, no Extended Rest capability yet. You can rest and recover once you've secured a place against the elements and against the threat of wild beasts, monsters, etc. You've now confirmed that this mountain is filled with danger and your prospects for safe shelter are clearly limited.

Player: I'm quite experienced in such locales. If we follow the river and take it dead down the mountain, it should either lead us to some river people or empty into a larger body of water with a coastal village. Doing it at night is not ideal however. What are the prospects mechanically?

GM: You're right. It isn't ideal at night. So you'd want to follow the river down the mountain at night in hopes of locating a village? I'd say complexity 3 SC with 1 additional Hard DC above normal. With that limited vision, going to be lots of opportunity for natural terrain hazards to come into play, to wind up in enemy terrirtory, or stumble monster lairs. Possibly find yourself at a dead-end where you have to backtrack completely...

Player: None of that sounds good. This immediate area is teeming with wild-life though. Lots of predators. What if we stick around here and keep looking for shelter to hole up for the night. On the slopes the worse we might get is probably a snake-bite or a dangerous bug sting. Up here, with this large watering hole, there are obviously lots of large predators that can outright devour me or the kids.

GM: Yeah, that's right. If you find a safe shelter, you could get an Extended Rest and stow the kids. Like you said, there will be much higher chance to be stalked or confronted (nested combat) by very dangerous wildlife up here in this thriving ecosystem. Given that we have established that your prospects have contracted, it is the dead of night, and this place is dangerous...still going to go with Complexity 1 Skill Challenge, but 2 Hard DCs instead of 0.

---

That is probably pretty close to capturing the conversation. Does that help?

Of course all of this does exemplify @JamesonCourage's points about GM agency and its ascendancy over player agency. The issue then is how it would be resolved, particularly in a way that preserved his insistence on the authorial control being entirely in his hands. Frankly I'm mystified by that. I don't see how players can be empowered in the sense he means, where they can always construct a definitive mechanical answer to every situation without reference to the GM's judgement AT ALL. I just can't even conceive of the mechanical structure of said game. I can certainly imagine guidelines which spell out an approach and a general mechanical framework, but that's exactly what the 4e SC system is! Maybe he can enlighten us with an example of how this would play out in his system. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[D'karr]

Amongst all this discussion regarding Skill Challenges what should not be lost in the conversation is that each technique is not binary (on/off) and exclusive (single technique). You can have a skill challenge that mechanically challenges/engages the PCs (healing surge loss, etc.), storywise challenges/engages the PCs (lose half the children, etc.) or even does both at the same time (loss of HS and loss of the children).

These conversations, like the examples in the DMG, are examples of some of the things that can be accomplished/done, not the entirety of what can be done.

I believe the examples in the DMG were simple examples (almost shorthand) to showcase some of the techniques but lacked in the explanation side (as shorthand usually does). For example it was obvious to me that the negotiation with the duke challenge (DMG1) had a story component that was not being mentioned or explained. Why did an Intimidate attempt immediately accrue a failure? It was a DM decision of course since he designed the SC, but in reality I could see a story reason. The duke is a proud and powerful man that will not be cowed (most rulers are in some way). Doing so (Intimidate) as part of a negotiation would immediately put him in a defensive position and anger him, specially if done in a public setting, thus accruing a failure in the challenge, which if I recall correctly had a goal of getting assistance from the duke. Anybody that has been married for a while knows that many times it's not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble. I assume story wise the duke challenge progresses in the same way. However, the Skill Challenge examples also lacked context. I imagine that a PC proficient in intimidation can also point out to others how intimidation is being used against them. In the duke challenge the example simply shuts down the use of intimidation and accrues a failure. It could also have had the context that if a PC uses his proficiency with intimidation to show the duke how the "opponents" are trying to intimidate him into inaction, then that might be a viable use of the skill.

The great thing about Skill Challenges is that they tried to standardize and make available to all DMs techniques for doing non-combat challenges in an interesting way, and actually having rewards and consequences. The problem with Skill Challenges is that standardizing also creates gaps that can not easily be mechanically accounted for (intimidation to show the "opponent's intent") because nobody thought about them. However that is why we have DMs. They can cover those gaps and make them "disappear" by making them flow better.

Which leads to the world building that has been discussed. I don't subscribe to the theory of everything must be written down in advance for it to exist/happen. Because doing so leaves tremendous gaps in what can be explored. The living breathing world is much better served by having an idea of things that are known, and anything that is not known is open to investigation/interpretation/exploration/attribution by both the DM and the players.

I've been running games for nearly 35 years. I have run hundreds, close to thousands of games, for thousands of players, particularly when I was heavily doing convention games. In that whole time I found that the best games were those where the players completely surprised me. When they come up with an ingenious plan, or explanation for what is happening. Sometimes it is better to follow their lead when they come up with an explanation that is much better than the very special snowflake I have "written down." This does two very interesting things. It keeps the game interesting for me as the players are allowed to completely surprise me. It also gives an awesome sense of accomplishment to the players because they figured it out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Amongst all this discussion regarding Skill Challenges what should not be lost in the conversation is that each technique is not binary (on/off) and exclusive (single technique). You can have a skill challenge that mechanically challenges/engages the PCs (healing surge loss, etc.), storywise challenges/engages the PCs (lose half the children, etc.) or even does both at the same time (loss of HS and loss of the children).

Yup! One problem though was the tendency to have SCs in adventures that ONLY provided basic mechanical costs. It is partly a consequence of the author not having access to the characters in the story, he can't know what their specific agendas are. Still, published SCs were often woefully framed.

These conversations, like the examples in the DMG, are examples of some of the things that can be accomplished/done, not the entirety of what can be done.

I believe the examples in the DMG were simple examples (almost shorthand) to showcase some of the techniques but lacked in the explanation side (as shorthand usually does). For example it was obvious to me that the negotiation with the duke challenge (DMG1) had a story component that was not being mentioned or explained. Why did an Intimidate attempt immediately accrue a failure? It was a DM decision of course since he designed the SC, but in reality I could see a story reason. The duke is a proud and powerful man that will not be cowed (most rulers are in some way). Doing so (Intimidate) as part of a negotiation would immediately put him in a defensive position and anger him, specially if done in a public setting, thus accruing a failure in the challenge, which if I recall correctly had a goal of getting assistance from the duke. Anybody that has been married for a while knows that many times it's not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble. I assume story wise the duke challenge progresses in the same way. However, the Skill Challenge examples also lacked context. I imagine that a PC proficient in intimidation can also point out to others how intimidation is being used against them. In the duke challenge the example simply shuts down the use of intimidation and accrues a failure. It could also have had the context that if a PC uses his proficiency with intimidation to show the duke how the "opponents" are trying to intimidate him into inaction, then that might be a viable use of the skill.

The problem of course was that they simply failed to illustrate vital techniques. For example the thing with the duke and intimidate; it would have been much better if Intimidate had been a skill that could be activated by say an Insight check. If the PCs can figure out the right way to put pressure on the Duke, then they CAN do it and succeed (although it might raise the stakes or something). DMG1 (in particular, but even the other later references) just missed out on too many chances to illustrate these kinds of necessary techniques. The Negotiation Challenge example thus devolves to a dull linear Diplomacy check slog. I think I actually once rewrote it either here or on the WotC forums, adding a flirtatious daughter, a jealous guard captain, and a bad debt to transform it into a MUCH richer and more interesting narrative with a lot more plot significance beyond just being a yes/no pass/fail kind of outcome.

The great thing about Skill Challenges is that they tried to standardize and make available to all DMs techniques for doing non-combat challenges in an interesting way, and actually having rewards and consequences. The problem with Skill Challenges is that standardizing also creates gaps that can not easily be mechanically accounted for (intimidation to show the "opponent's intent") because nobody thought about them. However that is why we have DMs. They can cover those gaps and make them "disappear" by making them flow better.

I would use Insight personally.

Which leads to the world building that has been discussed. I don't subscribe to the theory of everything must be written down in advance for it to exist/happen. Because doing so leaves tremendous gaps in what can be explored. The living breathing world is much better served by having an idea of things that are known, and anything that is not known is open to investigation/interpretation/exploration/attribution by both the DM and the players.

I've been running games for nearly 35 years. I have run hundreds, close to thousands of games, for thousands of players, particularly when I was heavily doing convention games. In that whole time I found that the best games were those where the players completely surprised me. When they come up with an ingenious plan, or explanation for what is happening. Sometimes it is better to follow their lead when they come up with an explanation that is much better than the very special snowflake I have "written down." This does two very interesting things. It keeps the game interesting for me as the players are allowed to completely surprise me. It also gives an awesome sense of accomplishment to the players because they figured it out.

Yup!

 

[LostSoul]

I think why it is being described as "a legitimate decision point" is because the choice the player makes at this moment, in response to this particular prompting from the GM (by the narration of a threat/obstacle) will determine a skill check. And the outcome of that skill check will have (i) a definite mechanical significance for determining whether or not the player (and thereby the PC) gets what s/he wants, and (ii) a definite fictional consequence which will shape the parameters for the GM's next episode of narration. (Up until the encounter is resolved one way or another.)

Cool, I think can see it now. I'd sum up the decision point as "how do you want this story to go?" (Is that fair?) If I decided to pray to Melora with my high Religion check, instead of using my okay-but-not-good Nature check, at that point I'm putting my PC's relationship with Melora into question, or at the very least bringing religion into the game. When I build my PC I'm going to invest in the resources that allow me to guide the fiction in the direction I want.

I guess one question is "why wouldn't you always use the skill with the highest modifier?" (Which makes me think of Burning Wheel's detailed list of skills.) That's probably a feature - the system reinforces your PC build choices by making whatever you're most interested in have the greatest weight so that you can reliably push the fiction in the way that you want, but on the same hand I can see how that would limit decisions because you'd always want to use that skill. The DM would need to be nimble, I think, to react and put pressure on the PCs and thereby the players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you as DM state certain features of the world's physical or magical laws, and a player proves to you that they are contradictory, how would you respond?

As a DM, I expect myself to have a pretty good handle on why I think what I think. If I rule two things differently (like experimental results), and a player suggests that they are contradictory, then I would sit back and thing about why I ruled them differently; five times out of seven, there's something more complicated going on - some real difference within the game world - that would cause those things to be different. If the player really wants to know, then I would explain how the things aren't really contradictory at all.

I'm only human, though. Failing that, I would attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction. Change things as little as possible, to resolve the conflict.

And failing that, the tool of last resort is a retcon. Admit that I made a mistake, and change what happened retroactively. I really don't like doing that, though.

 

[Manbearcat]

Cool, I think can see it now. I'd sum up the decision point as "how do you want this story to go?" (Is that fair?) If I decided to pray to Melora with my high Religion check, instead of using my okay-but-not-good Nature check, at that point I'm putting my PC's relationship with Melora into question, or at the very least bringing religion into the game. When I build my PC I'm going to invest in the resources that allow me to guide the fiction in the direction I want.

I guess one question is "why wouldn't you always use the skill with the highest modifier?" (Which makes me think of Burning Wheel's detailed list of skills.) That's probably a feature - the system reinforces your PC build choices by making whatever you're most interested in have the greatest weight so that you can reliably push the fiction in the way that you want, but on the same hand I can see how that would limit decisions because you'd always want to use that skill. The DM would need to be nimble, I think, to react and put pressure on the PCs and thereby the players.

Yup. That nails it. I think a lot of times when you see GMs having problems running SCs is because they aren't used to being nimble (unto themselves...eg not process-sim mechanics spitting out the next line of a causal mechanism chain) and dramatically appropriate with the fictional positioning. If the situation doesn't change in interesting, thematically coherent (with respect to the genre trope in question and with respect to the PC archetype involved) ways, then you end up with:

I DIPLOMANCE HARDER!

I CLIMB MOAR!

I RUN FASTER!

If we ran you as your illusionist Quinn and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as his paladin Thurgon through this exact same scenario (even though a game with those characters wouldn't likely ever find themselves in this situation), you guys would both have decision-points and narrative branches that share some similarities with Saerie and each other...but some that surely would be slightly (or perhaps significantly...it is difficult to say without running it) different than the above (based on different thematic resource suites at your disposal).

 

[Balesir]

I'm trying to follow along. Are you saying that none of the natural laws are known, until a PC checks them? Or just the magical laws, which nobody (including the DM!) would have any pre-conceptions about?

No, I'm suggesting that the rules describe what is known and fixed about the world. If someone (any player, including the GM) wishes to do something outside that then they must test to see if they can do what they want to do. Of course, sometimes the rules mandate a test for something they already cover, too - the (game) world is a complex and multifaceted place...

In either case, not only are you handing narrative power over to the players (!), but you're tying that power directly into the skill check of the characters! If the player wants it to be possible to channel firedrake essence into a ring, then that theory works because the character knows a lot about magic. My character knows a lot about magic, therefore he knows that my theory is true.

Not quite. The theory might or might not be true, independent of the skill of the character. If it is true - or if some approximation or variation of it is true enough that the attempted task could work - then the higher skill character will have a higher chance of achieving what they set out to do. This could be either because they are able to do it with more power, or more finesse, or because they are better able to spot when the initial theory was not correct but some slight modification of it will work.

If there is no chance of failure, the DC is wrong. This is why I said that 4E's level-based DCs actually work well for this - even at the highest levels, there will be a chance of failure. Unless, perhaps, you are a (demi)god - in which case making up rules of nature seems like it ought to be your daily bread-and-butter.

As opposed to my (much more traditional) method, where that action either is or is not possible, and a successful skill check would allow a character to know which it is (and, if it is possible, how to actually do it), but the narrative control - whether or not it is true - is wielded exclusively by the DM.

Well, for one thing, as GM I really don't want all of the narrative control - what would the players be there for?

Secondly, it's true that I could divide the resolution into two dice rolls - one to see if the thing is actually feasible, the other to see if the character succeeds at it. But what would I gain? I would lose the fact that the player is in the dark about whether they succeeded or failed because their theory was true or they just got (un)lucky - reducing immersion and depriving the game world of some of that mystery which even this "mundane" one posesses in abundance. I would introduce the risk of "metagame" factors such as the Expectancy Effect" (if a horse can use it, I'm mortally certain that a roleplayer could!) and remove most of the sense of exploration for me as GM (because I would know whether the theory was "correct" regardless of the player's roll). But I don't see that I would really gain much at all.

I mean, even if you did want players to have some narrative control over the setting, it just seems like a bad idea to tie that into skill checks. Since narrative control is a player resource, you probably want to share that equally, rather than saying that stronger character in-game also has more power across the meta-game.

Well, in 4E, they don't. Some are more skilled ("trained" or just high abilities) in some areas, but every character is skilled in some areas. And using level-based DCs removes much of the "sheer power" effect. It's not really a "player empowerment" thing - it's just a balanced and fair way to test "unknowns" about the game world. Perhaps part of the thing is that I see it as "our" world, not "my" world?