Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[Balesir]

Limits/no limits =/= no power/all power.

I'm afraid it does. The thing that might limit a GM is some alternative source of power in the sphere under consideration (a roleplaying game). The reason the GM has no limit must be that no such alternate source of power exists, ergo the players have none. Nothing they (try to) do cannot be overridden by the GM; in oether words, they have no power. They act merely on the sufferance of another, however benign that other may be.

The same thing that we're all doing in real life I imagine. The universe is a big place. We have either no or virtually no ability to influence even the tiny part of it that we care about. The same is carried through in our fiction, including the idea of fate in fantasy and the idea of cosmicism in horror and sci-fi. It does, however, befit us to try and focus on the things we can control.

We cannot influence all that we care about, that is of course true, but to the extent that we are able to act we do not do so in the hope that what we do will work based on the approval or otherwise of some third party - or rather, I should say, I don't. I act based on my knowledge of the consequences that my actions might have. Were I to lack entirely such knowledge, I think suicide would be something I would seriously consider (except that my ability to carry even that out might be circumscribed by the will of the mysterious other - the very definition of a living hell, I would think.).

Clarity, simplicity, and a good dose of player fiat (not being bound too much by the vagaries of the die), I can get behind. What I dislike with the AEDU Powers, besides its dry formatting, is : 1) the way a power is hard coded in the PC repertoire : you are "building" a deck of powers 2) its weird attrition scheme : a CaGI fighter will lure its foes exactly once per fight, no more, no less (unless he choses not to). I have the feeling 4E PCs are 6-tricks ponies (3E and 3D powers), which could seem better than "I attack, again and again", but is in fact more of the same. I am longing for something more organic and open-ended, while relying on a robust resource management system.

*Shrug*. Some rationing scheme is required, and this one is simple and clear and provides for interesting choices. If some other system offers an alternative rationing system that is as appealing I'll be interested; the materials shown so far for DDN don't, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll look at the final product and see how that stacks up.

You are right, of course. The trick with earlier editions, that is lost with 4E, is that DMs are expected to tinker with the rules to make them suit their needs.

Actually I am increasingly finding 4E very easy to tinker with. It divides the rules neatly into sections that are universal underpinnings and those that are "components" (powers, monsters, classes, magic items and so on), to begin with, which makes understanding the scope of any change comprehensible. I now routinely generate new "components" to suit what I want to use (monsters and magic items, at least).

It also makes the underlying assumptions and "math" quite clear these days; that makes rules tinkering a much more informed activity.

The underlying structures of the rules I find, almost without exception, to be suitable enough to my purposes that I have no need to change them. If I did I would probably feel the need to seek a different system for heroic fantasy games. But I do feel the need to add to them, for various cases (social, realm and exploration spheres, in particular), and I am beginning to feel that I could do so to a standard of quality that I would find satisfying.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D doesn't include competing narratives. Nor are the mechanics of the game (or most all games actually) about resolving people's narrations into a "shared fiction". The DM is in no way a player in D&D. All the Big Model is is a highly prejudiced philosophy created to stamp out any ideas not agreeable to its own. It wasn't even given credence to until the last years of 3.x and then in the design of 4e by Mike Mearls who is one of the three founders of The Forge. I believe he has some good will to D&D given the failure of his last design, but D&DN is still rife with "narrative resolution mechanics". They can't or won't let themselves out of the horribly conceived check system originally put forth in the DSG. The idea that the OSR and old school game design are "essentially the same as the new school" is just more inability to think outside contemporary biases. In order to understand D&D and game design in general at any level we need to completely scrub our minds clean of narrative theory and the bigotry of narrative absolutists.

 

[pemerton]

"...the GM decides..." has always been a solution of D&D

<snip>

If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of systems where the GM is simply "the guy running the monsters/adversities/encounters" and has no province or authority to change what's happening in the game world.

<snip>

1e I played for years and years...there are "rules" for weapons' reach...for initiative/weapon "speed"...never used them. Never saw them used in play. We played 1e...and then 2e...to the letter...but weapon reach/speed? Nope. Initiative took care of this. You go first or they go first. That was all. Were we playing "wrong"? I sincerely don't believe so...Everyone knew the "rules" everyone had a good time. That is all that matters...not "the rules say, the rules say, the rules say."

<snip>

the DM has no limits...the players do.

It's not clear to me who decided in your AD&D game not to use weapon speed and reach mechanics - you say "we", but then you go on to imply that it's the GM who makes these sorts of decisions.

Anyway, I'm glad you had fun playing your D&D game. I'm sorry you think I'm playing D&D wrong.

the GM can always find his way around something if he really wants.

<snip>

as long as he has a good reason to do what he chooses to do, a GM can do anything. Of course this opens the door for GM abuse, but if the GM is a reasonably mature human being that shouldn't be a problem.

<snip>

It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but not because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.

This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution? Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources? If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

Depending on how authority is allocated across these (and other) aspects of play, the game comes out very differently. It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things. For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.

how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.

I disagree. Its just that it requires the players to think imaginatively, the GM to think on the fly, to provide some kind of target number for the player to roll against.

<snip>

PCs can do anything in every edition of D&D. A good DM/GM will allow a PC to try anything they can imagine. Just like a good teacher will never say, "Bad question," a good GM will never say "You can't do that." They might say, "That will be very, very difficult, but go ahead and try..."

Can you actually explain to me how you would adjudicate this in Moldvay Basic? Or AD&D? Or D&Dnext?

Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.

You speak of Fiat like its an approach taken in all situations; I see it as more of being when needed to improve or augment the game. As I said before, let's say the big bad monster is on its last legs with 76 HP and the rogue scores a critical hit for 67 HP of damage; I'm going to "fudge" that and offer a kill - and not tell the players that the monster "really" had 76 HP, because in my view it didn't "really" have 76 HP - it had 67.

<snip>

I've never played in a game of D&D in which the rules were absolute laws, or the DM didn't employ Rule Zero (Fiat) to some extent (the trick, though, is doing so without the player's realizing it).

That sounds like "say yes or roll the dice" - namely, saying yes. And why wouldn't you tell the players? What is the point of maintaining an illusion that dice rolls matter if in fact they don't?

What you describe, to me, places the GM as more of another player, the player who plays "everyone else," and less as the story-teller.

I have zero interest in "GM as story teller". That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else". As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.

I reserve the right (as GM) to use Fiat if I deem it necessary to the improvement of the game, and the overall enjoyment of the players.

Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't they exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think we're slipping a bit here into territory I'd rather not venture into - endless nitpicking blow-by-blows, and all that jazz that just ends up in an impasse or, worse, accusations of Edition Thuggery.

Rather than address each and every point and disagreement you make, let me re-frame our discussion a bit in the hopes of illuminating the underlying elements at work.

I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.

In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world. To use an analogy that you have made clear is not your preferred style of play, if D&D is akin to an interactive and open-ended fantasy movie, the DM is the film-maker and writer of all characters other than the PCs, whereas the players are the protagonists. The DM creates scenarios, plot hooks, and even story-lines for the PCs to interact with. They co-create the story and action of the game, but the whole affair is run (and often created) by the DM.

Now obviously this isn't the only way to do it, nor is it necessarily the "best" way, but it works for me and is, I think, basically the traditional, default approach to D&D - across all editions. There might be slight variations among editions, but I think this is the most common paradigm.

What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself. That sounds like a lot of fun and I'd love to try it, but that's not how I've ever played D&D, whether as a DM or a player in many different campaigns and with many different games. Some DMs have had players create parts of the world, say the village they came from, or even the religion that they're part of, but its still within the DM's creation.

The paradigm you describe is something that I can see employing in different RPGs, from Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth to Mythic to Reign. In fact, it could probably be employed in all, or least most, RPGs - but it is not something that I've ever experienced in a game of D&D.

I've often wanted to co-create a world with a group of people and each of us take turns DMing. I haven't found the group of people to do it, whether because of time commitments, interest, or just plain creativity. In the group I've been a part of for a few years now I'm the lone "serious+" gamer, with everyone else being casual. Anyhow, the point being that this is another paradigm from the two I described above, and that I'm open to trying different approaches to D&D, even if I enjoy and usually fall back on the "traditional" one.

One final note. As a DM, I always allow and encourage players to think outside of the box, to do whatever it is they want, and I've found that 99% of the time my players trust my judgment and sense of fairness. I would never make it "very, very difficult to play an inspirational battle captain" - that is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what I was trying to express; I'm honestly not sure how you came up with that interpretation! My point was simply that players can doanything, even if it isn't on the character sheet or defined by the rules, even if it seems nearly impossible.

You might think I'm more against 4e-style play than I actually am. As I've said a few times, I really enjoy 4e, but also feel that something is lacking, or has been lacking for me (and many others who express similar feelings). What this is is not so simple as to be easily narrowed down, but is a combination of factors, only some of which we've discussed in this thread. But I do want to (re-)emphasize that I don't even dislike AEDU in and of itself, I just feel that it has a kind of totalizing effect that obfuscates the approach to game play that page 42 seeks to address but is, in the end, de-emphasized.

I want both: clear and definable resources, but also a free-wheeling, improvisational play style that isn't relegated to a single page in one book, but is firmly part of the game ethos. I want to imagine myself in the game world, and determine my action as the character that is there, and then pick a power or skill if I need to. Actually, all versions of D&D allow for this, but some emphasize different components more than others, and to varying degrees.

I'll leave it there, instead of re-circling back around again as is my tendency!

 

[Cadence]

What is the point of maintaining an illusion that dice rolls matter if in fact they don't?

The thought that the rolls matter, matters to the players. And the rolls do matter the vast majority of the time. (Is it kind of like trying to have a cutscene in a video game without the players realizing it was one?)

Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?

As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing.

If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do? ("But the king doesn't have any neices or nephews for you to be... how about duke so and so" or "there actually isn't anyone in you home village who could have taught you that... there aren't any fire sorcerers within a 1,000 miles of there" or "its bronze age tech... where would you get that Katana?").

On the other hand, I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design (like @Mercurius talks about in the post just above this one).

Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't they exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?

EDIT: Removed a few things because @Mercurius said them more succinctly above.

Semi-related, who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash? Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general? If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split? Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?

 

[Sunseeker]

If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do? ("But the king doesn't have any neices or nephews for you to be... how about duke so and so" or "there actually isn't anyone in you home village who could have taught you that... there aren't any fire sorcerers within a 1,000 miles of there" or "its bronze age tech... where would you get that Katana?").

On the other hand, I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design (like @Mercurius talks about in the post just above this one).

I think it's one thing to ask a player to revise their background, work with them to integrate their desires into the gameworld, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the DM has the right to change a players background without their consent. That's a pretty clear violation of the player-DM consent. It's like your government repainting the room because it clashes with the carpets in the oval office.

 

[Cadence]

I think it's one thing to ask a player to revise their background, work with them to integrate their desires into the gameworld, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the DM has the right to change a players background without their consent.

Changing it without discussion and consent seems bad to me too.
Should the DM be able to veto a portion of it if some compromise can't be worked out (say in regards to the three hypotheticals I give)?

 

[Lanefan]

This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution?

These are all part of a DM's bailiwick.

Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?

If I'm in a game where the DM wants to just tell me my backstory I'm cool with it. Then again, backstory isn't that important to me until the character has lasted long enough to become relevant, and by that time it's writing its own story within the game anyway.

To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?

Usually no.

If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

Absolutely the DM can say this; you-as-character have no way of knowing the Orc had Stoneskin cast on him before he came out of the cave. The point of having the player roll the die is in part to show there's more to things than meet the eye.

It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things. For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.

Well, the "authority over spells" consists of a few random rolls...

I have zero interest in "GM as story teller".

Where I want the DM to at least have a vague background plot and-or history and-or storyboard for the campaign to run on, that the players via their characters can then interact with and change, tweak, whatever through their actions. Before my current campaign started, for example, I drew up a storyboard of what adventures I'd expect to be running as it went along and how they fit in with an overall story I'd halfway dreamed up. I've re-done it about 8 times since as things change, major hooks get ignored while trivialities get followed to the end, etc.; and while elements of the original overall story are still there it's going to all end up pretty different than what I originally thought.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the DM gets stuck running a story/adventure/scene that she doesn't really want to run it's going to show, and make for a lesser game.

Lanefan

 

[Balesir]

I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.

I think the difference may be rather smaller than you imagine. Of that list, the only one I would definitely exclude is "storyteller". As GM I don't know what the story will be, nor do I want to. It will emerge from play. "Worldbuilder" may also be a bit dubious for D&D (specifically). I "build" sufficient of a "world" for play to proceed, but no more; the rest is mutable to suit all the players' requirements (including mine). The rest - referee (of the rules as written), scene-setter and so on are all fine. "Overlord" is a bit overblown, but the GM's role is certainly wider than the other players'.

In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world. To use an analogy that you have made clear is not your preferred style of play, if D&D is akin to an interactive and open-ended fantasy movie, the DM is the film-maker and writer of all characters other than the PCs, whereas the players are the protagonists. The DM creates scenarios, plot hooks, and even story-lines for the PCs to interact with. They co-create the story and action of the game, but the whole affair is run (and often created) by the DM.

If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.

The GM creates scenarios, yes, and plot hooks and necessary background - but not the storyline. The story is formed from a synthesis of the GM's framed situation and the actions of the protagonists; without the latter it does not exist - cannot exist.

What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself.

They are co-creators of the story, which to an extent you might call "the game itself", but in D&D they are not usually the co-creators of the world outside their characters. The actions of their characters might change the world, for sure - that is the very essence of being a protagonist! But the players don't generally decide the system or setting detail as such.

As an addendum, I lost the quote, but you said you were the lone serious gamer while your players were "casual". I think this might partly explain why you feel that 4E powers "stifle creativity". I said above that, once the players get to know both the rules and their characters they tend to use their powers as resources rather than a checklist of "what to do". If your players don't/can't learn the basics of the rules thoroughly, then I'm guessing that a really rules light system would suit them better. Rules in any game really only work well if the players all know what they are.

Semi-related, who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash? Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general? If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split? Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?

In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.

The idea that the GM "has greater knowledge of where things are going in general" is somewhat alien to me. Greater knowledge of the monster/NPC/setting details? Sure. Greater knowledge of where the story is heading? Nope.

Well, the "authority over spells" consists of a few random rolls...

Assuming that the GM is constrained by the rules, yes - some seem to be saying that rules do not constrain a GM, however...

Where I want the DM to at least have a vague background plot and-or history and-or storyboard for the campaign to run on, that the players via their characters can then interact with and change, tweak, whatever through their actions. Before my current campaign started, for example, I drew up a storyboard of what adventures I'd expect to be running as it went along and how they fit in with an overall story I'd halfway dreamed up. I've re-done it about 8 times since as things change, major hooks get ignored while trivialities get followed to the end, etc.; and while elements of the original overall story are still there it's going to all end up pretty different than what I originally thought.

Background, yes. History, yes - as far as is required for play. Story board or predetermined plot - no. To have such a thing is, at a minimum, to limit the influence of the players' decisions and thus to render their characters other than protagonists - which is what they are supposed to be.

Now, there might be exceptions to this with the agreement and connivance of the players - when running through a sequence of published scenarios, for example - but in general no future plot should be assumed or planned by the GM. The players should make clear their intentions, and the GM should plan around that.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the DM gets stuck running a story/adventure/scene that she doesn't really want to run it's going to show, and make for a lesser game.

That may be true (I don't remember ever experiencing it), but it would be an occasion for communication with the players, not for unilaterally strong-arming things into a direction I liked.

 

[steeldragons]

It's not clear to me who decided in your AD&D game not to use weapon speed and reach mechanics - you say "we", but then you go on to imply that it's the GM who makes these sorts of decisions.

I don't really know/remember a "decision" by anyone. It was some time ago. As I recall, it was just the way we played...one of the DMs must have decided it at some point, which was more likely a "I don't like this [and/or know how to use it] so I'm just going to ignore it." and everyone shrugged and said "ok." Then when we traded off DMing (including myself) we just did the same.

Anyway, I'm glad you had fun playing your D&D game. I'm sorry you think I'm playing D&D wrong.

Yes, yes. Everyone is out to attack your style preferences. Play D&D however you want! Noone's stopping you or saying it is "wrong" [or in the bottom line, care if you are, really].

The point is, that does not somehow translate to telling us all how D&D has it (and apparently, as in many of your discussions, always has had it) wrong and should do/include/change xyz.

This strikes me as underanalysed.

Perish the thought!

Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution?

Yes. All of these things are part of the DM's responsibilities and areas of influence.

Again, the players play their characters.

Through that role-playing, they interact with the world, create and shape the plots...that actually get played, at least. If I had a nickel for all of the unused plot hooks *longing sigh* but I digress...and, in general "control" the story through their character's actions. The DM controls everything else. That's the game we call D&D. That's not edition warring or anything...that is the construct...the framework...the paradigm of how the game we call D&D is played. Players play their characters. GM controls the rest.

Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?

I wouldn't, but suppose some could. Given the GM's knowledge of the areas, politics, regions, etc...I would say they can offer guidelines or suggestions that would be accurate and in the spirit of the setting/game. That is, I am not inclined to reqrite backstories for people...but that does not equal "I'm not going to tell you to change anything" when you write whatever you want.

If, for example, a player comes to me and says, "I want to be the crown prince of the wealthiest kingdom. All of my equipment is magical and paid for/inheritance of my ancient family line...and I have a loyal gryphon named Harvey as my mount that I grew up with."

9 times out of 10, they're getting a big fat, "Try again."

That 10th time, maybe we're playing a "high level/high powered" game. So, sure you're rich and have magical stuff. Why not?...Maybe the game setting is particularly "high magic/fantasy" and gryphon mounts are as common as stray cats...Maybe we want some courtly intrigue kind of story, so all of the PCs are nobility or royalty of some [social] level and backstabbin' begins in game 1. Sure, you can be crown prince...good luck makin' it to game session #2 mwahaha.

As with many things DM-related (and this would be a whole nuther ball o' waxy thread) it's a case-by-case basis.

To rewrite character sheets?

Why would anyone want to rewrite someone else's character sheet?

To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?

Of course not. Suggest/offer guides to an inexperienced player looking for assistance/direction, sure. But as a matter of course, no.

If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

I wouldn't do this, no. For me the natural 20 is sacrosanct. I imagine, in other games/other gms might not find it so impenetrable, and be ok with letting outside things (or extremely rare/powerful situations) influence the natural 20.

Depending on how authority is allocated across these (and other) aspects of play, the game comes out very differently. It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things.

Then I suppose the only reasonable thing to suggest is go back and re-read all editions. There are, I suspect, some variations/levels of variation...suggestions for inserting variations?

It should be obvious to everyone here that no amount of discourse, no matter how civilized and informed, can make it "clear" for you.

For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.

Yeh. So?

Can you actually explain to me how you would adjudicate this in Moldvay Basic? Or AD&D? Or D&Dnext?

Moldvay Basic and AD&D are fairly crystalline on this (unless I'm thinking Mentzer, but some Basic for sure). The GM supplies the MU pc with their starting spells...those spells learned during their apprenticeship (as there were no such things as cantrips until UA) from their mentor (or however that was fluffed/storied).

Because, as the default D&D world (for those editions) supposes, magic spells aren't growing on trees. A tutor/mentor is only going ot have certain spells in their repetoire...and/or only be willing to teach certain ones to their pupil...Wizard guilds/communal towers are similarly going to be limited in their options and what options they will permit low level wizards...going the "Harry Potter motif", a 1st level MU coming out of a "wizarding academy" is only going to have access to those spells they have been taught/classes they've taken.

If you want to throw out all of the asusmptions of the game world, that is more than fine...even encouraged sometimes...but you can't simultaneously throw out all of the assumptions and then say "but it's not working right." ... think I unintentionally cast Tangential Tirade (an at will cantrip for interwebists, of course).

In 5e we will have to see.

As far as "adjudicating it", like everything else in the book...Do what it says or change it if you don't like it/it doesn't fit your expectations of the world/cuz Johnny blesses you whenever you say "svirfneblin"...whatever. In this nonsensical case, either let the players choose their own starting spells - a fairly common, if not universal, houserule, I think - or dictate the fighter wpn prof's if that's what you and/or your players want.

Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.

Most of this doesn't even read like english to me...but the gist is there...pemerton likes 4e. News to us all, I'm sure. How did we ever survive, and in only one dimension apparently, before that breath [or raging hurricane?] of fresh air?

I have zero interest in "GM as story teller". That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else".

Exceeeeeeept... That's exactly what it they do/it means.

As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.

Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't they exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?

(emphasis mine)
I just don't know how else...without... No further comment.

Good luck all.