The problem, IMHO, is how often the "powers" of a particular ruleset clash with the fiction.
This seems to me to beg the question. Knocking a snake prone doesn't clash with the fiction - it just requires a little more work for everyone at the table to work out exactly what the content of the fiction is.
That's part of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic - the content of the fiction is negotiated among the game participants as one aspect of the process of action resolution.
at no point during a battle does a dm "OWE" the players an explination of why something did or did not happen.
Well, as Ariosto and I have both noted upthread, the 4e DMG expresses a slightly different view on this - that the GM
is obliged to inform players of the effect on action resolution of a creature's powers, traits etc.
This hasn't caused me any difficulties, because I've always been happy to inform players of the relevant mechanical traits of creatures they interact with - for example, if in Rolemaster a PC hit a monster with crit reduction, I will not only apply the crit redution but iniform the player that I have applied it.
Furthermore, 4e has fairly well-defined rules for using knowledge skills to learn a monster's skills and powers
before engaging it. This provides players with a further opportunity to learn if a snake has the Immune to Prone trait or a magical Scale of Ventral Righting.
I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.
Fine - although I personally don't see why a superheroic punch to the head of a coiled snake couldn't hurt it sufficiently that it falls on its side, or in an uncordinated heap, and requires a move action to right itself.
But in any event, if a player at your table envisages his/her PC performing such a superheroic punch, and then is informed by you that such a thing isn't possible, are you saying that you wouldn't let them redescribe their unarmed attack as a grab and flip of the snake?
My own view is that a GM who is going to be liberal in modifying the application of the rules on the fly so as to defeat some player expectations ought at least to allow player takebacks or rewrites in response.
the actual fact in most games is that the referee does indeed retain the power to say, "You can't do that!" over any use of "fate points" or the like. In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?
Again, if you want to play such a thoroughly different game then suit yourself. Complaining that D & D is not it seems a bit silly.
First, I don't agree that the referee retains the power you describe in most Fate Point games. Where is the rule to that effect in OGL Conan, for example? Or in HARP? Or HeroWars/Quest?
Second, it's fairly obvious why you would continue to have a GM in a typical game in which the players enjoy some authority via Fate Chips. The GM has authority over the content of the bulk of the setting, and hence to a significant extent over backstory and situation. Plus the GM has a whole lot of responsibility in relation to action resolution. All this is independent of whether or not the GM has authority also over when and how players can spend their Fate Points.
A practical example - 4e! Which has a very clear role for the GM, even though (in my view) that role does not include vetoing player use of powers. That role is stated in the Rules Compendium in this way (at p 9):
The Dungeon Master controls the pace of the story and referees the action along the way. Every Dungeons & Dragons game needs a DM. The DM has several parts to play in the game.
*Adventure Builder: The DM creates adventures, or selects published ones, for the other players to experience.
*Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters that the other players must overcome.
*Monster Controller: The DM controls the monsters that the adventurers confront, choosing the monsters' actions and rolling dice for them.
*Referee: The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.
I'm not a big fan of the "licence to fudge" - and part of the strength of 4e design is that it works, in my experience, without fudging. Otherwise, this fits pretty much with what I said above: the GM is in charge of backstory and of establishing situation, and also plays an important role in action resolution, both by controlling the monsters/NPCs and by adjudicating the rules. All this can happen perfectly well and coherently without supposing that the GM has any special power to disallow players' use of their PCs' powers.
(As an aside - I'm not complaining about D&D. 4e
is the game I'm looking for. D&D has
already become the game that I want. That's why I play it.)
if having to spend a "Fate Chip" to use your Power will satisfy you, then go ahead and suggest that to your DM.
I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.
DMing is a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities. If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM.
I don't find GMing particularly thankless or burdensome, but precisely because of this agree with your view about who should give when it comes to the narration of PC powers. Because of the GM's virtually overwhelming power in terms of situation design - even in a pure sandbox, the GM has overwhelming power in terms of populating the world and determining the motivations of its inhabitants, which sets what we might call the "possible situation space" for that world - it strike me as extremely unlikely that the GM is ever going to find the game going in an unenjoyable or uninteresting direction.
When this does happen - eg the GM who wanted to GM Dragonlance but has players who want to play Villagers: The Massacring - then the solution isn't to assert more GM power but to settle the underlying social conflict.
