I think that this is interesting, so ... why? This goes back to the Chinese Room (AI) analogy.
What is the difference between the following three scenarios-
1. A coin flip seen by everyone.
2. A coin flip by the DM that only the DM sees.
3. A coin flip by non-participant Jake, who you called, and asked to flip a coin.
I know that emotionally it feels different, and there might be reasons of fairness, transparency, and not bugging Jake to not employ these other methods, but fundamentally they are just outside referents for adjudication.
1 vs 2: The possibility of fudging, for starters. Even if the process is used faithfully, the secrecy/ignorance is clearly a factor that affects decision-making.
2 vs 3: The amount removed. You have to recruit a third party, who then reports to you, and you then report to the group. Now there's the element of
hearsay, there's two different points of re-interpretation (Jake is unseen by everyone; your internal response is unseen by anyone but you.) Further, it implies that the group present at the table isn't actually "enough" to play. Other people have to be recruited. What happens if it's 2 am on a Thursday morning and no one you know is awake to flip a coin? Does the game just...halt?
1 vs 3 is just the concatenation of the above things.
All of these probably seem self-evident if you are familiar with certain styles of play ... but ... they aren't for everyone. I think that a lot of people would get hung up on some of these - what can players just "do" and what must they attempt by coin flip?
You tell them. That's literally what Dungeon World (for example) does. It literally tells you when a move is invoked. That's why nearly every move begins with the phrase, "When you
<trigger phrase>, <rules text.>" (Bold is frequently used to highlight the trigger phrase, so I have reproduced that here.) So, for example, the first actually listed move in Dungeon World is the Bard's Arcane Art move:
When you
weave a performance into a basic spell, choose an ally and an effect:
- Heal 1d8 damage
- +1d4 forward to damage [NB: "Add +1d4 to the next time you deal damage"]
- Their mind is shaken clear of one enchantment
- The next time someone successfully assists the target with aid, they get +2 instead of +1
Then roll+CHA. ✴ On a 10+, the ally gets the selected effect. ✴ On a 7-9, your spell still works, but you draw unwanted attention or your magic reverberates to other targets affecting them as well, GM's choice.
If you don't meet the trigger phrase for a move, then you're playing through the fiction. If you do, then you do whatever the move says. This is pithily summarized with two maxims: "you have to do it, to do it" (you
must meet the trigger phrase before a move can happen, not just declare the move itself) and "if you do it, you do it" (if the thing you've done meets the trigger, then the move happens as described.) Trigger phrases should be straightforward and unambiguous, particularly for baseline moves that are meant to be used regularly.
What if a player disregards the fiction entirely (the whole bad faith, "I jump over the moon" example)?
Then you ask them why they are doing so, since (again, using Dungeon World as a comparison point) sticking to the fiction is explicitly an expectation of play. Why is the player choosing to abrogate one of the explicit parts of playing this game? Are they upset with something? Have they misunderstood? Or do they simply not wish to be bound by that restriction, despite it being a requirement for playing the game they have claimed to agree to play?
What if a DM narrates failure that the player doesn't like (you failed at walking 5' forward, so the consequence is ... YOU SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST AND DIE!!!).
Exactly the same as the above: the DM has failed to stick to the fiction. Moreover, in your (intentionally ludicrous) example, the DM has failed to actually apply the rules, at least for a game actually
designed, like DW. Spontaneous death doesn't make sense for the action taken, which is one of the requirements (Principles) of being a DW GM:
make a move that follows. Forcing the player to exert effort to do something as trivial as "walking 5' forward" is against the spirit and the rules of the game (the Principle
be a fan of the characters and, more importantly, the Agenda
play to find out what happens.) Having the consequence of a failure on something so trivial be instant, combustive death likewise is detached from the stated fiction, and thus fails to abide by
start and end in the fiction.
So, as with the previous example, the correct response is to ask this GM why she is breaking the rules. What is her goal in doing so? What purpose is served by so flagrantly opposing the Principles as laid out in the Dungeon World books? In what ways does this benefit the shared experience of play? Does she simply not wish to run
this system, despite having offered to do so?
These are background assumptions that are "baked in" to the ruleset you are proposing, and yet they are not self-evident when it comes to adjudication. IMO.
For a system actually
designed to do these things...no, they aren't "baked in." You address these questions by making their answers
part of the process of play. That way, problems are almost instantly identifiable, and bad faith is easy to separate from mere mistakes.
