Ok. Question: It becomes relevant to know how the laws governing inheritance of noble titles work in a country the characters happen to be in. How is this information provided? Does it matter if this is a historical game set in the real world? A game set in a published world that has plenty of source material? In a world created by the GM?
Does it matter why the question becomes pertinent? What if player declares an action that relies on assumption of the situation that might not be shared by others at the table? Does it matter if there in theory would exist a 'correct' answer to the question? (I.e. the information is available on wikipedia/setting book/setting creator's head etc.)
It’s hard to imagine this actually being something that’s established in much detail for a setting, beyond some broad elements like “titles are hereditary” or the like. So in the absence of those specifics, most likely the group would talk it out.
Like if something like this came up in my game of Blades (and it has) we discuss the possibilities. I had a player whose PC was the equivalent of a disbarred lawyer, and one of his goals was to be reinstated. So we had to come up with all kinds of legal elements that aren’t typical in most games of Blades.
Can it? That's really the pertinent question. Because some people seem to imply that it very much can't. This tangent was inspired by @EzekielRaiden as GM telling the players what colour of clothes were customary in funerals in a certain country, and some posters taking exception to them doing that. (Or at least that is my recollection of the discussion.)
Yes, it can be done. Not unilaterally, though.
I don’t recall the specific example of funerary clothes or what have you….I admit to having largely skipped much of that part of the discussion. But the relevant question is “why should this be a detail determined solely by the GM?”
There has to be a satisfactory answer to that question, I’d say. It’s hard for me to imagine how the color of clothes can matter so much, so why not let the players decide that detail? Why do I feel the need to maintain that control as GM?
But is that an option, or is it how it must be done?
It depends. If the action runs counter to details already established, then you’d explain that and offer the player a chance to approach another way. If it didn’t contradict anything that’s been established, then letting it stand is certainly something that should be considered. You’d have to have a compelling reason to not allow something like this, and by compelljng I mean something beyond “because I already had an idea in my head” or”because the GM typically decodes this kind of stuff”.
So in my game with the lawyer character, the player came up with ideas for loopholes and ancient laws that somehow still existed and could be exploited and so on…just all kinds of stuff that is thematically appropriate for the bureaucracy that is Doskvol. Why would I shoot that stuff down? If the player came up with some BS like “oh here’s a law that goves me exactly what I want with no challenge or effort” then sure, you wouldn’t just allow that as GM. But such a player is kind of going against the principles of play. But if they create a narrative that fits the setting and makes sense and doesn’t contradict anything, which gives the character an avenue to pursue their goal…why not go with it?
Such avenues need not come from the GM alone.
No. Exactly the opposite. I am not telling anyone how to do things. They were telling @EzekielRaiden how to do things, and I was merely pointing about that at least in this regard their approach seemed to be pretty valid. This is not in any way to suggest that doing it in some other way wouldn't be valid as well.
Going solely off your comments, that’s how it sounds.
Here’s something I think may be relevant to the discussion. People have been talking about styles of play. But that’s really something that pertains to D&D and similar games. Where you may have multiple valid approaches to play per the rules as written. One GM rolls all rolls behind a screen and never shares DCs with players and doesn’t use random encounter checks and charts, another rolls in the open and declares all DCs and relies on random encounter checks. Neither one of them is violating anything in the PHB or DMG for 5e.
This isn’t always true of other games. A lot of Story Now games have very specific processes that are meant to be followed. And while of course you can deviate from those processes, once you do, you are no longer playing as directed by the rules.
So I think this fact has also muddied things a bit in the discussion, because people are assuming much more latitude in how to effectively run and play a game than may actually be expected by the book.
I think there’s a difference between saying “you must do it this way” and saying “this is the way it’s been designed, so if you do it differently, you should recognize what that will mean”.
