I know what you mean! If you have time to share your paragraphs I'd gladly read them. I have come away with what - for me - are a few useful concepts.I did read it, in fact read many parts of it several times, trying to get my head around what you are saying.
And then I wrote a bunch of paragraphs of response.
But...I'm exhausted. With this thread.
- On rules and resolution, DM decides
- On player-character motivation, player decides
- 5th edition procedures are malleable by design
- Player choice | > character motivation > character actions
- To everything there can be limits and exceptions
2. Game results can't impinge on player-character motivation, but they can inform what might be roleplayed should the player choose. A result that informs roleplay can include consequences that don't impinge.
3. The 5th edition basic pattern supports natural conversation among players and DM. Challenges and consequences might be explained up front, or a player might outline an approach that suggests to their DM additional or reduced challenges. Based on what is explained, players might modify their approach without ever having enacted it. The flow is malleable as well as recursive.
4. Mechanics frequently control actions. They rarely control motivations. DM narrates the results of mechanics, informing player choices without controlling them. In practice, the definition of roleplay largely protects the middle part: player-character motivations.
5. Set limits and S>G exceptions can (and often do) override roleplay. Exceptions can exist anywhere, altering any aspect of how the game normally works.