Well, the game books disagree with you. They quite explicitly give the D&D DM exactly that power.
Yes, I realize that. But it's not one that any group expects to be used all the time. It's not meant to be applied willy nilly. The spirit of that rule is that you should alter things to suit the situation or the specific group of players as needed. There's no need to be slavishly loyal to the rules as written.
If a GM used this in the manner you're implying....where he's just usurping the rules and the players' expectations without valid reasons for doing so....that's just bad GMing.
And then again, there are many games that specifically don't allow this.
I disagree. The skill bonus and DC don't really model reality or the fiction very well at all. The character wouldn't know "+8 vs DC15" they'd know "that looks like a fairly difficult climb, but not too difficult." And I see no functional difference between "+8 vs DC15" and "roll the dice, higher is better" except that it telegraphs the number needed first...which is explicitly a level of precision a person in the real world or a character in the fiction would not have.
Except that's not how it works in the real world. We almost never have precise understanding of our chances of any given task succeeding. There are generally too many variables for even the human brain to account for. "It looks like a fairly difficult task, but not too difficult; I can probably do it, but not certainly" is the closest we ever really get. You think you have a 100% chance to remember what you went into the other room to get...only to completely forget what it was you were after. You think you have a 100% chance to walk across the room without issue...only to trip over something you couldn't even see...or your own feet. You think the clever thing you thought of will 100% make a particular person laugh...only for them to be put off by what you said. The world is filled with variables we simply don't know. It's an affect of gaming -- not reality -- that we expect to fully comprehend those variables.
What they would not be doing is having precise measures of skill and comparative difficulty through which to filter their decision making. Accuracy is the crux. As gamers we're used to that kind of accuracy, but it's an affect of gaming, not something that's a model of the real world. At best we have comparative reference points...but never absolutes. So "that wall looks easy to me" not "I have a 75% chance to climb it."
There is no certainty. It's an approximation. The dice are what makes it uncertain. I think you're underestimating peoples' ability to know the odds of success for a given task.
But even still.....the numbers are doing the same job that the GM's verbal description is meant to do, right? The PC wants to climb a wall...that's the stated goal. Whether we use numbers or words to convey this to the player....really, what's the difference?
For me, the numbers are more accurate, and closer to correlating with how the character would feel about the task.
So exactly like most other RPGs. Would you say the DM in D&D is neutral? They have the exact same level of control over the game as the FKR Ref.
I think it depends on the game, and even the edition of D&D. In modern iterations of the game my answer would be no, the DM is not neutral. Not in the sense that the term had been used earlier on.
I think most editions of D&D hew closer to the level of control by the GM that FKR games seem to, but probably not quite as far. FKR seems to take the already authority heavy role of the GM in D&D and increase it. But that's generally speaking; I would expect some variance among specific FKR games.
Exactly like most other RPGs.
That...in D&D...the DM is free to ignore. Less so in other games, granted.
It's not problematic. It's counter to your preference. That's all.
No, it's problematic plain and simple.
Let's say our party of PCs runs into a dragon. Oh no, we're all gonna crap our pants! Oh ho, not me.....I made my save!
If the DM then tells me "You did....but the dragon fear still affects you. You can't take actions other than to flee!" I see that as a problem, and I expect most folks would agree. Yes, he is technically allowed to do this as you've pointed out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is problematic.
It's crappy GMing. And taking this over to FKR, the main difference to me seems to be that the players would simply not be aware that this BS was going on, where as in D&D they very well may. And in many other games, it would be immediately obvious, and at least poor form, if not outright cheating.
Why would a neutral GM feel the need to override the rules? To what purpose? What does hiding the rules really accomplish in these situations?
This conversation is mostly about comparing FKR to D&D as it's the most easily assumed shared reference point, but the FKR isn't necessarily a reaction to just D&D. I actually like the "weird" non-standard way earlier D&D editions handled various things. If I have the option, I'd rather use the various polyhedrons I've collected over the years instead of just the d20 the vast majority of the time. If I have to use one die for everything, I'd rather use at least two that are added together so there's a bell curve to work with.
Maybe. But the FKR designers and Referees have the benefit of hindsight and the 50 odd years of game design to draw from to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. They can see what stacking rule upon rule upon rule leads to.
Sure, this would be very similar to what I'd say about all game design over the past few decades. They've seen a lot of the mistakes in action and can design with the intent of avoiding them.