I brought up FKR because someone else in the thread referenced it earlier. It's an approach to GM-ing where the players have extremely little agency, the system is designed for the players not to know the rules, there being barely any rules in the first place, and for the GM to have the ultimate say in everything.
I'm curious about the statement "players have extremely little agency". In my opinion the amount of agency is 100% dependent upon a GM, not the game rules. Even in a rule-less game where everything is GM adjudication, if the GM lets players take any actions they want (without any "your character wouldn't know/do that" crap) and those actions actually affect the game world (the GM doesn't force their plot down the players throat, regardless of what the players do) then the players have agency.
But...it feels like you are equating "agency" with "the GM can't interfere with the players actions".
The thing about FKR is that when you play that it is consistent because the system itself, which barely exists mind you, was designed this way from the beginning. This means that not only do people expect it to function this way, but there is no fundamental way of bypassing this approach either. That is: The system is consistent.
D&D is not consistent, because there are two ways of getting things done:
A: You negotiate with the GM and maybe or maybe not you can do what you want to do
B: You cast a spell and the GM cannot typically object unless he decides to arbitrarily shut down your stuff with antimagic field..
In shorts, spells, encompassing concrete units of rules, are actionable. They provide agency by being rules that can be used no matter what.
A good idea.
Bob is playing Rarity the Rogue. Rarity has expertise in diplomacy. Alice is playing a wizard.
Bob: I want to try and smooth talk the guard to let us through.
GM: No can do. It's not going to work. (doesn't let Bob roll)
Ok, I can see why you wouldn't like that sort of GMing. I wouldn't either.
Here's how it would work at my table.
Bob: I want to try and smooth talk the guard to let us through.
GM: Ok, what's that going to look like? What are you going to say?
Bob: I don't understand...I want to make a Diplomacy roll.
GM: Great. So you're not going to try to deceive him or threaten him, but rather convince him it's a good idea to let you through, right?
Bob: Yeah...can I roll?
GM: Wait. I'm all for this approach, but what does your 'smooth talking' look like? Are you flirting with him? Trying to be buddies? Convince him you're not the droid I mean rogue he's looking for?
Bob: Oh, um, well. Well, what kind of guy does he seem to be, and how is he looking at me? Like, is he the hulking brute sort who is suspicious of everybody, or what?
GM: No, actually, he looks kind of young, and maybe even a little nervous.
Bob: Oh! Well, in that case I'm going to smile and say, "Lot of responsibility they've given you, huh?"
After a little bit of this I will use my best judgment, factoring in the efficacy of the approach, the experience of the player, and the impact on the story. Which may simply be automatic success, but I may genuinely not be sure what to do, in which case I might call for a roll, but only if I think failure would actually leave the player(s) in a worse spot. For example, the player might declare an action, and I might say:
"Ok, you can try that, and this will be the deciding factor of whether he lets you in or not. But if you fail he's going to realize what's up and call for help. What do you do?"
Also note that if, for game reasons, I just didn't want to let the players through, and knew that in advance, I would have described the guard MUCH differently, and made it clear that this guy is a stickler for rules.
Now, some people might say "Railroading! There should always be a chance of succeeding! No player agency!" but how is a guard that won't budge any different from putting a wall in a dungeon where the players wish there was a door? (I mean, other than that the guard suggests to players who are used to playing a certain way that this guard must somehow be manipulable...)
Alice: I want to cast charm person on the guard to have him let us through.
GM: Ok that works.
I guess there is one potential situation where this will not be prominent, and that's if the GM is being very generous with skill related rulings to all non-casters.
You seem to admit that you are deliberately ignoring non-combat rules and if you do that then what is left to interact with the world in except either spells or an unreliable GM?
I have seen it complained about in person. I've had a player change class because he felt incompeten ("Never again will I play a rogue"). I know people who refuse to play D&D because of this thing.
Yes it's mainly a high level problem, but it starts appearing at around the point level 3 spells become available and it just gets worse from there.
The vibe I get from your posts is that DMs can't be trusted to run a fun game, and that rules are needed to ensure they aren't jerks. Maybe as part of the long-running debate (in which I never really participated) between "DM Empowerment" and "Player Empowerment". And, yes, if you've commonly seen DMs act in the way you describe then I get why you have this position.
(fixed some typos...probably some remain!)
To this I have the same response that I do about players regarding metagaming: you can't prevent people from being jerks with rules. The only solution is to find non-jerks to play with.
