I think where I get confused is how "situation framing" doesn't take on the character of high DM authority in a dnd context.
Authority over what part of the fiction?
The framing? Well, yes - 4e D&D is oriented towards GM authority over framing. In this way it resembles (say) Burning Wheel or DitV and does not resemble (say) classic D&D used to play Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands.
@Manbearcat has explained the principles that govern the GM's exercise of scene-framing authority: locating that with system-and-player established themes; and within the context of player-authored quests. It's no surprise that these are similar constraints, operating in similar ways, to those that are used in systems like BW or DitV.
What mechanism in 4e keeps that playstyle from completely being DM fiat?
What differentiates that playstyle and a sandbox style?
What I am attempting to point out is that with no prep and no mechanism to rely on for determining how your improv should go, that ultimately you have nothing to base your in play GM decisions on - they are completely fiat. I question whether a gamestyle that is based on complete GM fiat can appropriately be called Story Now.
<snip>
If skill challenges are an answer to my criticism your not doing a good job of explaining how.
A sandbox, as I understand it and as I believe
@Manbearcat understands it, depends upon the GM establishing a relatively large amount of setting/backstory in advance. The players, in play, declare actions - especially actions of the form
We go to such-and-such a place and
We look at such-and-such a thing - and in response to these declarations the GM (i) provides the players with information that the GM takes from their notes, and/or (ii) frames the PCs into scenes/situations that were latent in those notes, but become "activated" in virtue of the PCs turning up at, and/or looking into, that place.
The best-known model/example of this sort of thing is a classic map-and-key dungeon, and the quintessential example of an action declaration that triggers the "activation" of a situation hitherto latent in the GM's notes is
We open the door - what do we see?
Another feature of this sort of approach is that the pre-authored backstory provides answers to action resolution beyond the activation of hitherto latent situations. Eg if the GM has described a table, and the players say
We look under the table to see if anything is hidden there, the GM generally responds to that action declaration by reading of their notes. (Because notes often run out, especially for minor details, many GMs have a range of techniques used for off-the-cuff extrapolation eg random charts to see what is in a kitchen drawer, or making something up with the goal that it be colourful and entertaining - eg
Under the table you see some crudely scratched graffiti - "Shagrat sucks goat b___s" - but not be misleading or confusing vis-a-vis the rest of the fiction the GM has prepared in their notes.
Some of the most classic D&D modules are written to be approached in this style: S1 (ToH), S2 (WPM), C1 (Hidden Shrine), C2 (Ghost Tower), B2 (KotB), T1 (Hommlet and the Moathouse), etc.
Now
@Manbearcat has said that he is running 4e No Myth. No Myth is normally used to describe an approach to RPGing that puts
situation and
characters first, and relies on extrapolation from these, as they combine in framing and in resolution, to establish backstory and setting. And I'm guessing that's how Manbearcat is using the phrase in this thread. And this is clearly quite different from a sandbox approach.
As I stated earlier in this post, Manbearcat has made it pretty clear what principles are governing his approach to framing scenes. 4e has super-robust mechanics for resolving the actions that players declare for their PCs once a scene is framed, whether via combat or non-combat (skill challenges in this latter case). My view is that 4e is at its mechanically weakest (which is not to say that it is any weaker than any other version of D&D, and I think clearly stronger than AD&D or 3E in this respect) when combat and non-combat intersect, because the maths does not integrate perfectly. But I know from experience - having read Manbearcat's extensive posts about his 4e play, and having played 4e with him as GM - that he has developed various ways of coping with this weak point of the system.
I think the way in which 4e's combat resolution produces outcomes without GM fiat is fairly clear. Skill challenges seem to be more opaque to many people - in my experience, mostly those who have not encountered the idea of "closed scene resolution" in other RPGs like HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP, DitV, etc.
A skill challenge puts two constraints on a GM. (1) Until the requisite number of successes or failures has been achieved, the GM is
obliged to narrate consequences that keep the challenge alive. (2) The GM's narration of consequences must respect the fact that any given check is a success or a failure. It is through the operation of these two constraints, as actions are declared and resolved and the situation unfolds, that new fiction is established and complications and revelations unfold. They are
outputs of the resolution process, not
inputs as they are in resolution that draws upon pre-authored setting/backstory.
I don't really see how 4e mechanics help or hinder with any of that. You could do the same in 5e if you wanted.
My view, which I stated upthread to at best modest acclaim, is this:
I've run AD&D quite successfully using shared backstory authority (especially in PC build, but also the GM taking suggestions from players on the way through) and GM authority over situation/scene-framing.
I don't see why 5e D&D couldn't be run the same way if a group wanted to do so.
4e defaults to significant player authority over backstory - eg via player-authored quests. This sort of thing could, in my view, be fairly easily introduced into 5e D&D. But as I understand it, 5e does not have an analogue to skill challenge resolution; and as far as combat resolution is concerned, I think it is widely recognised that it's default is not as intricate as 4e D&D, which means it provides less support for the generation of fiction via the process of resolution. In both these respects, it's much closer to AD&D.
Therefore, I would expect No Myth 5e based on shared backstory authority and placing
situation and
character first to play fairly similarly to AD&D played in the same fashion. It will be a bit more rickety than 4e is, and probably at some points a bit more recourse to consensus rather than resolution mechanics to deal with that. And combat will be less of a source of compelling fiction than it can be in 4e.
And if someone were to aske me,
what are the pressure points in 5e that are absent from both 4e and AD&D, I would have two answers: the first is that character abilities that do not just enhance stat/skill resolution, but seemingly rely on engaging with established background material - eg Ranger's Favoured Terrain; Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality - become a bit trickier in no myth play without a skill-challenge like structure to feed them into; second, whereas AD&D and 4e both default to fixed DCs out of combat (either stat numbers or thief skill numbers or the like in AD&D; level-by-DC chart in 4), 5e requires the GM to set the DC.
Those pressure points needn't be fatal. But I think someone GMing No Myth 5 D&D would want to keep an eye on them.