So, again, I don't see what you're arguing? I look at your example, and if that is as freeform as 4e gets ... it doesn't seem that freeform.
Care to elaborate?
Question... if non-paragon characters were able to achieve the necessary DC's would you let them succeed at the same tasks?
No. A non-paragon dwarf isn't the toughtest dwarf around. This is why I think it's strictluy analogous to your example of the amphibious PC.
One more question is there a formal way laid out in the rules that prohibits non-paragon PC's from achieving paragon feats?
No. That's why I am saying that it is a freefrom mode of adjudication, based on the table's conception of the tiers of play.
Fewer restrictions and assumed systems = more free in a formal sense.
Yep 5e just has less formal structure in general... which just goes to the point that many of us have been making about 5e.
So as I posted upthread, I don't see
freeform as a synonym for
GM decides or
GM makes up whatever s/he wants and/or calls for whatever rolls s/he feels like. What I would see as paradigms of freeform systems would be HeroQuest revised and Maelstrom Storytelling. (Others have mentioned Fate but I'm less familiar with it.) Both these systems have PCs built around freely chosen natural language descriptors (much like Cthulhu Dark that I mentioned upthread). Both have very tight scene-resolution frameworks (similar to skill challenges in 4e) but I don't see that is at odds with them being freeform.
Freeform, as I understand it, is about the way that PC build elements relate to established fiction relate to consequences of actions. Standard D&D combat is a paradigm of non-freeform - PC build elements fall under tightly-defined mechanical categories that generate mostly mechanically-defined consequences (hp loss, then death) with fictional positioning playing little role (sometimes modifiying attack rolls).
The example of reforging Whelm as Overwhelm differs at every point in this respect: the PC build element of a high Endurance skill bonus doesn't have a mechanical meaning that is independent of the fiction of being a tough dwarf (it's quite different, in this respect, from the same PC's attack bonus); its deployment is clearly embedded in the fictional positioning (in that case, of the hammer in the forge); and the consequences are fundamentally
fictional consequences (the injury to the PC's hands; the reforging of the hammer) rather than mechanical (contrast hp attrition).
As I said, to me it seems - in process terms - pretty indistinguishable from
@Imaro's example of the amphibious PC making a check to hold his/her breath.
I do find it weird that half the proponents for 4e seem to be arguing that unlike 5e it's a tightly integrated ruleset with clearly defined parameters and this is a plus... while the other half seem to be claiming it's just as freeform as 5e and it's parameters are no more locked down than 5e...
I don't know what you mean by "parameters".
I'm only talking about resolution of skill checks - framing, setting a DC, adjudicating outcomes.
As it happens I think that 4e's power system supports a more flexible and freeform approach to adjudication more broadly, because these are all-purpose resources that can be used in all sorts of contexts as suggested by the underlying fiction - which is a notable contrast to 5e's more traditional D&D spell lists - but that is not a topic that has come up yet in this thread except a little tangentially in some posts from me and
@Garthanos.