Right, genre logic, or one might call it narrative logic is a driving force in 4e's resolution system. It appears to me that 5e's system simplistically deploys DCs as a sort of 'minefield'. There are lots of checks at fairly low success levels, with potentially DCs being arbitrarily high even in situations designed for low level PCs. The theory being to just 'make it all challenging' and hope it works out. A 4e adventure is structured (ideally, many are poorly written) such that the DCs provide story variation, which character gets the spotlight now, and perhaps which path you take based on choosing a risk/reward level.
That is the players could choose to fight the hobgoblins, or they could choose to cross the Great Gulch on the rickety bridge. The fight might be a pretty sure bet, but plainly going to cost some surges and whatnot. Crossing the bridge is riskier, if the bridge fails someone could die, but if its successful then you got by with just skill checks (an SC probably).
The point being, if you examine the chances of success in 4e checks, they're not very tough to pass in general. The game WANTS you to succeed. The average level 1 PC has say a +5 on a check, and the medium DC is 12, so mostly the system is saying 65% or more success, and in an SC you probably have your best guy, he's got an 80% success on a medium check. The hard checks are then used by the GM to force the PCs to plan ahead, use some extra resources, or change tactics, but (again its an SC) not to outright fail the encounter in most cases. Cumulatively the situation could be quite iffy, but if the DM is putting narrative logic of conflict, the protagonist PCs are moving through a narrative conflict with whatever the current antagonist is, then they're always making some sort of progress. You CAN of course fail, but the story is more about the cost of success.
This is why the SC system is really so core to everything. While we've debated the check mechanics of each system, the truth is the raw check mechanics of 4e are intended for a rather different purpose than in 5e. They inject tension and some uncertainty, but they're not intended to create hard obstacles to success, at least not until the players have chosen to trust their fates to pure chance.
I don't know if any of you are actually working on Literary Theory (professionally or just Goodreads/ TV Tropes). I do
both of them (sorry, but it's in Spanish). I'm not trying to sell you an Authority Fallacy, but the fact is that there is enough evidence to say that world construction (and the rules within) are actually a hell lot of important in order to determine the genre and its narrative conventions (check out also Mendlesohn
Rethorics of Fantasy). In this way, "In-world rules"
are genre conventions too.
Look at fantasy writers: Tolkien, Martin, Jordan, Bodoc, Gorodischer. They actually work a lot to construct their worlds and their verosimiles, which allow their stories to function in their own genres within a coherent mainframe. A laser gun, or even a Fireball, in
A Game of Thrones would break the verosimile and genre conventions, as well as it would modify the narrative structure. So I will say too that the above statement (about narrative vs world) is blatantly false, as is the claim of the obstacles vs narrative consequences. Obstacles are actually a way of constructing narrative tension, and to encourage taking decisions too. They are also the chance to shine of several classes
outside combat. In fact, thanks to the direst consequences of fighting in 5 ed (the drainage of resources is severer, and there is a good chance of a fight going bad) the choice becomes more legitimate.
In fact,
there is where the DM agency comes around. Does the DM want to encourage problem resolution? Or does he want to encourage bravery and bold action? Or to make significant the skill sets and differences between characters (for example, giving world significance to the fact that the Fighter is stronger than anyone else).
Every approach works perfectly with the worldly DC resolution, which absolutely
can escalate. And The 20th level wizard can admire how well the Fighter saves the children from drowning boldly swimming against the flow, with a good or not that good chance of success (depending on the table's interest).
In several ways, magic is never enough to solve every problem partly because the spells don't last forever, and partly because they have a limited application. There is where the skill checks become relevant. And the Bounded Accuracy and Proficiency rules are there too to make the stats
very important, on pair with the powerful feats, because a miserable +1 actually is a lot here, not that much the level or the skill points (because they are gone). Being trained or not
makes the difference here. Also, it is
here where the superior ASI of the fighter means a lot (and hence, the RA ability comes around with a magnificent +2 to non trained skills). DM agency, here, means keeping true to the genre conventions and the "world" conventions. When and how or why make a skill check is up to the DM (and hence, the table, the players).
Being trained or not
is relevant narratively (the strong sailor is expected to swim better than the squishy bookworm wizard, no matter the level to make a narration diverse and grounded) and table-wise, and if a non trained but higher level character have the same ammount of success (high, low, whatever) than my well trained, stat strong character, I would be extremely angry, and maybe I'll punch you on the face before leaving. Why do I waste a resource if, in the end, it does not matter, only my level? Where is the difference between playing a magician, a rogue or a fighter, or to train an ability? And narratively, it generates different tension if the bookworm, no matter his lack of training, for pure heroism swim against the flow, whereas the sailor don't dare.
