My position is that the rules are like the directions of a recipe.
Every seen a recipe that says "add ______ to taste?" Sure, 5e is like a recipe - one where every ingredient is "to taste."
If you don't follow them, you may get a different result than the recipe intended. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste. That's all. I follow the recipe and the result is something I find enjoyable enough to keep doing. Others may not.
You follow your interpretation of the recipe, to your taste. Unless it blows up on you, it'd be unfair of someone else to say that you're doing it wrong. Grant others the same courtesy, rather than claiming you have a lock on the One True RaW.
I don't see how "The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions" is anything other than absolutely clear.
You're seeing it in pemerton's posts, among others.
Describing the results of an action can include narrating what a character thinks, decides, does or feels - or not, depending on your interpretation.
I agree. But I also think that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has asserted as much upthread, if I remember correctly. I can go look for the post if my recollection is disputed.
I suspect it may have been more along the lines of experience with past editions can't be entirely set aside or compartmentalized when learning a new edition. I went so far as to say it'd be very helpful. I doubt anyone really claimed that 5e is impossible for new players to learn.
If all this stuff of serious concern to you? Or is it just philosophical debate for the point of...well, philosophical debate?
IIRC, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is an actual philosopher, like IRL.
Or am I miss-remembering?
I'm not "smearing" anything - I'm enquiring about a particular aspect of the environment (namely, equipment) and who has principal authority over it.
Players typically pick equipment from a list in the rule book, and are privileged (a privilege first formalized in 3.0) to describe what their that gear looks like. Adding to or banning from those lists, though, is presumably the DM's prerogative.
I don't think that having rope is a usurpation of GM authority. Because I think it's a clear exception to the GM's authority over establishing the environment.
The DM's authority could include ruling that the player doesn't (or does) have rope if it's found not to be on his character sheet, or narrating that the player doesn't find said rope where he left it (it may have been stolen, or lost, say).
I don't think that the difference between objects that I bring into the game as extensions of me and persons that I bring into the game as extensions of me is self-evident. And I think that D&D itself has had features, over multiple editions, that illustrate the point: is a henchman a NPC (the official rule) or a second-tier PC (the frequent default in play which even the official rules give a pretty good nod to); what about a MU's familiar or a druid's animal friend/companion? Or even a charmed person or monster?
OK, I have to acknowledge those are good points, and not even all exclusively from past editions. 4e & 5e did get /very/ careful about 'pet' mechanics, though, which seems consistent with the intent for them being player-controlled (and that was clearly spelled out in 4e, of course, since it was way more precise & jargony).
Obviously there are ways of handling all this, and of formally or informally allocating the requisite authorities. It's been done, both at the system level and at the table level, again and again over decades of RPG design and RPG play. What I am asserting is that the GM has authority over the environment, the player authority over the character isn't enough to do this job. And if that's all a game gives you, then you're going to have to supplement it with intuitions or understandings drawn from elsewhere.
I question that the D&D player actually has /final/ authority over his character. Rather, the process of play is that he generally makes decisions for his character. In 'narrating results' the DM could essentially take control of the character (something that freaks some players out, admittedly, but arguably within the scope of the DM's 'power,' that scope being essentially unlimited).
I understand what you're saying here. But as I've said earlier in this post, I find it hard to see how that sort of play can (i) give all the authority around establishing those NPCs, who they are, what they're doing, etc to the GM and yet (ii) give the player all the authority to decide his/her PC's feelings.
I don't see an inherent contradiction. People can have one sort of relationship, each as far as the other knows (understands/experiences), yet the interior life of either or both my not be in synch with that.
In bits of your post that I didn't quote, you talk about solving some of these issues by letting the GM override the player's account of what his/her PC believes. I assume you'd be prepared to do the same to make the sort of scenario you've described here work.
The DM would seem to have that authority, both traditionally through most of the game's history, and specifically in 5e. But, like all rules, it's open to interpretation - DM interpretation.
