I point out that we are making decisions - for example your creating a fiction about a shortage of oil - that operate in a decision-space that is strictly limitless. Another GM could have created a different fiction, and been equally right in doing so.
Well, IIRC, the 'shortage of oil' thing came up because Awanye failed a resources check to buy oil.
@Manbearcat was then given the usual choice, a twist or a condition. Now, he's GOT to utilize the stuff that comes from the PCs, belief, goal, creed, instinct, and friends/enemies primarily. I don't recall the exact mechanical details of this specific interaction, but the upshot was that we were getting our oil, but with a complication, which was that this shifty guy had to be dealt with. This addressed Jakob's belief/creed and the previous history with Bear and the hand removal was leveraged to provide the fiction. The twist threatened to turn into a condition, and then it further threatened to turn into an immediate problem about how to dispose of the situation once we grabbed the guy. Two obs were overcome, resulting in the situation being back-burnered and left to maybe next time we are in Strond.
Likewise we ran into a complication (another twist) at the point where we exited the town, due to not being able to pass our resource tests for lifecycle costs. This turned into another series of tests where
@Manbearcat put pressure on one of our friends, the Ghost Mother. We were able to cut down the consequences to a condition for Awanye, and some fictional change in state for the Ghost Mother. It might also eventually create some relationship with a priest, but I'm not sure how that will play out, the precedence rules are a factor there.
If you are able to write down what those things are, you will see that agreement to a rule isn't located in the rule. It can be located in view of the consequences of the rule. And it can be located in view of the consequences of agreement to the system as a whole.
Game rules are not followed simply because they are rules. Games are voluntary. Their rules are followed in view of their consequences for us (their appeal) and in view of external considerations like friendship, trust, and so on. We can find ourself in a game where some participants don't follow rules that we have chosen to follow, or follow them in a different way (and thus in view of the consequences of following them that way.)
It's not all or nothing. Opt-in is not automatic: intrinsic to the rule. One might choose not to follow a rule, and then have another explain it to you in a way that makes it more appealing, and thus decide to follow it. That is explained by knowing that the following of the rule is in view of something other than the rule itself.
What difference does any of this make? I am completely puzzled by why this is going on and on. Of course rules don't enforce themselves, DUH! Participants in the game decide what rules they are using or not using in their own game. When I play Monopoly maybe I do funny things with the money from 'fines', maybe I don't, it will be up to all the people playing to decide. What the criteria for that are, that's also up to the participants, but its probably implicit and something like "because it will be more fun" with some kind of additional refinement perhaps, like "because it adds a bit more luck to the game" or whatever. Given that this sort of thing is simply THERE in all games, why debate about it?
What CAN be debated is what the game text itself does or does not do which may affect people's ideas about what they want to use and why, and maybe how.
That is why I cite Torchbearer. Because I mean to illustrate that we are able to follow constraints even while working in decision-spaces that are strictly limitless.
I think it is far less 'strictly limitless' than you assert. Its true that the GM in TB2 could probably devise almost any fiction that accomplished certain goals that the system specifies. Maybe the shifty fence with the oil could have been something totally different, but it would HAVE to address elements of the character sheet of the PC involved, that is mandated by the rules, and is a CENTRAL element.
It might turn out that our greatest disconnect is that as GM you (possibly?) do not see reasons in 5e as a system to accept constraints, while I do. If right, maybe the rest follows from there?
I don't see where 5e really erects those constraints. It seems more like "DM, do what you want, though you should consider this or that." vs games like TB2 that are much stronger in evoking specific principles and tying them directly to very concrete mechanics.
Those are excellent examples of choosing to follow rules in view of the consequences if you accept/enact them for yourself.
- From experience, you have found that the rules reliably achieve an agenda of play that is one you find enjoyable (the appeal is the enjoyability of satisfying that agenda)
- You find that the cognitive space is desirable (perhaps parsable, diverse, and complex enough to be stimulating)
That another could
not find the achieved agenda enjoyable, or the cognitive space stimulating, is perfectly plausible. Half our play group
love TB2, and the other half don't have any desire to play it again. When they don't, they choose not to accept/enact the rules concerned for themselves. It is in view of the benefits (the appeal) that we chose to follow the rules.
Isn't this just self-evident? Again, I'm not understanding why were burning thread space on this.
Another example, you chose to follow different Journey rules from those in the LMM. You explained your view that the consequences of following the different rules were appealing in some ways. The LMM rules had no power to force themselves upon you, other than that you granted them (and in this case, you did not grant them that power).
Sure, its a pretty small change though, IMHO. House rules certainly count as 'customization' of the rules, but we still follow THOSE rules, and they fit with the rest of the game in the same way as the RAW rule.
Yes, constraints are fundamentally opt-in. The characteristics are relevant because it is in view of them that we may choose to opt-in. There can be other reasons, too. For example, a player with no understanding of the rules may opt-in to them because they want to enjoy their friends' company. And may continue to follow them in order to avoid being seen as a spoilsport.
I think
@Manbearcat's point is that some things really are NOT opt-out if you want to play anything like the game as designed. If you make such a change the character of the game will change considerably and all of a sudden your shorthand is invalid. When someone says "lets play Dungeon World" I have a PRETTY GOOD idea of what that will be. If it turns out to be something quite a bit different, then the game is likely to fail. It may not even be obvious to participants when something in a game is subverted this way until they experience it, or even AFTER they experience it, yet they are likely to be dissatisfied. So 'choice of game' does a lot of work! Monkeying with that is hazardous to success in an RPG.
That includes 5e. There is no smuggling in. Rather I think sensitivity to what the system offers and adherence to principles. Looking for the best in a system - taking advantage of its strengths.
Yeah, but then people seem to misapprehend what my experience tells me the conscientious, principled play will or is likely to achieve, or how it is achieved, in various games. Now, obviously I am not some oracle of rightness in terms of what I think, but, for example, I don't see 5e actually doing a lot of things that some people have claimed for it, certainly not in close to a way equivalent to certain other games. But when I point that out, I get told that "it can be done." Hmmmm, yeah, but that's a pretty weak assertion! I can do any darn thing at all with Holmes Basic too, if I hack it enough... lol.
What I thought we were debating is whether GM-fiat necessarily applies in 5e. You and others seemed to be saying that due to Rule 0 or for other reasons, it does necessarily apply. That's not my experience.
GM-fiat is coded throughout 5e, that would be MY response to this. Sure, you can work to avoid it, but it isn't just a matter of saying "Oh, I'm not going to use Rule 0", there's much more to it than that! In fact I am not sure how you can NOT use Rule 0, though you might sort of 'reconstitute it' as basically a coda of pretty much every other rule (5e tends to read this way, a LOT of its 'rules' recapitulate some phrase about how the GM is supposed to make choices as to how, why, when, and where a rule is used).
Frex, I use Rule 0 in play to make rulings in case of lacunae. I note such rulings and after play the group agrees whether (or not) that will be our houserule for the rest of the campaign. I use Rule 0 out of play to author or revise rules in ways that can better serve the group, and such rules become constraints from there. I never use Rule 0 to arbitrarily disapply constraints consistent with "system-directed, system-constrained, rule-and-principles-and-best-practice-observing, conscientious GMing".
We are simply saying that 5e has a very different take on what that is than say TB2, DW, BitD, BW, or for that matter original D&D. Some of those games (most of them) don't mention a 'Rule 0', and are written with the intent of being less centered around GM directed play. So obviously this has a real impact on the structure of the game, and how, when, why, and where all the things you mention above happen, or could happen.