Kessa:
The examples helped put the idea of control into context, I think. If I understand this correctly-- and I might not-- events outside of adventuring can more or less be dictated by players so as to keep them free of the constraints of the game mechanic framework, but yet they are less able to do things they would ordinarily do with the option of die rolling?
That's close. You're sort of conflating two of the concepts I'm putting forward.
One, I give the players a lot of control. The point of that is that they then don't have to wrest control from me by optimizing beyond my ability to control them.
Sometimes, what a player isn't enjoying about a game stems from the game world itself, something players traditionally don't have much say in. Some recent games have really tried to make it easier for players and GMs to get on the same page with the world before playing, and some groups do that anyway, without the rules having to say they should. Often that control is meant to end once the game really starts, but I don't see why it has to, if the players have the good of the game in mind.
Kessa:
For example, forced to make a deal with a merchant with a rare and valuable magical cosmetic to obtain a potion to save the kidnapped dignitary, he could use his Arcana to choose the right thing to trade, but walking down the street at home trying to find something for his friend, he'd be inept? It seems an odd way to look at things.
Well, your choice of example contributes to that oddness, by going from the person being adept to them being inept, as well as involving a situation - buying a gift for someone - that I don't think a GM would be likely to interfere with.
But let's work with that example before moving on. The character is reasonably good at using Arcana in a tense and significant adventuring scenario, but in a different situation they're less good at it. I don't think that's odd, because I think those two things can involve much different applications of a skill, or much different criteria. The adventuring situation is plausibly going to involve different emotions, different motivations, different considerations, different tactics. After all, I know that I feel differently when making a trade or exchange with a friend than with a stranger, and I'm never involved in anything particularly dramatic. I don't feel the need to go into what exactly those differences are, I just consider that they could account for overall differences in how we handle the situation in game.
Another example: The character is able to sweet talk the secret of cold out of the Deity of Ice, then walks with that secret into the throneroom of the ruler of the realm who sent the party on that quest. The ruler is suitably grateful and rewarding, but the player wants more and asks to receive a portion of their reward in the form of a private dinner with the ruler. Sure, sounds cool. At the dinner, the PCs puts the moves on, hoping to take things further, to the level appropriate for the maturity level of the game. The GM doesn't ask for a roll and ignores any pre-emptive rolls and describes the ruler as ultimately immune to the PCs' charms, if perhaps flattered or flustered.
How exactly the GM were to handle this could contribute greatly to the player's reaction to this. A scene of heavy flirtation and banter followed by failure could be much more rewarding than the ruler simply falling into the PC's embrace; such scenes are common enough in stories, even if (often
particularly if) the seducer is normally really successful. If it were interesting enough, the player themselves might even help come up with reasons why such a result makes sense. But a GM who made no attempt to make the scene interesting or the denial plausible might leave the player feeling cheated out of something they deserved to have.
Either way, though, it's plausible (whether or not the player thinks so in the moment) that one situation should hinge on dice rolls or skill modifiers and another shouldn't. Different stakes, different NPCs, different emotions, different relationships, etc. I'll be the first to admit that none of that makes much difference if the player isn't willing to consider it, but that's why it's important to get on the same page with one's players.
It comes down to a couple of different things for me:
One: the rules laid out for the GM and players are not all there is to the game world, as much as some games want that to be the case. The skills and abilities given to or made available to PCs and their primary opposition are there to enable certain kinds of games, not to be the foundations for a whole, consistent universe. The list of skills for PCs doesn't cover every activity anyone might engage in (because the game isn't designed to simulate every aspect of existence), and the PCs' training is not applicable to every situation that might seem similar (because the game isn't designed to simulate every situation). And it doesn't really matter what game one is talking about.
Two: I generally want my games focused around adventurous challenges, with significant stakes. Failing to talk the Deity of Ice out of the secret of cold might mean that the year long heatwave sweeping the planet might turn into the
years long heatwave sweeping the planet, or that the Deity takes umbrage at the audacity of the attempt and sets the ice hounds on them. Failing to seduce the ruler means... what? A ribbing from the PC's pals?
Now, set up the seduction of the ruler as part of some larger crisis or need, with important stakes to win and lose, and I'm interested. Now we can roll some dice and make this a paced-out quest to achieve. Now, it's not just getting the ruler alone, it's neutralizing the other suitors (the vizier with evil designs, the noble knight who the PC respects, the attractive and confident merchant who it's easy to understand falling for), dealing with some pressing distractions (invasion, plague, assassination attempts)
and getting the ruler alone
on multiple occassions and via different methods. A player
might just want to stand there with their huge Diplomacy modifier and just "diplomance" all of those away (except the plague and maybe the assassins) but, even assuming that's allowed by the rules, why would they want to? If they
do want to, then just skip to the end of that scenario and ask them what scenario and for what stakes they
would be willing to make risky rolls for
Kessa:
But further, if players are spared the need to make rolls on mundane things, why couldn't a player just decide his character naturally knows how to deal with cosmetics and just write it into the game? Or, is that a level of being able to do things that's beyond what you would consider a normal success because it's more nuanced?
Sparing them the need to make rolls on mundane things serves multiple purposes. One is that it's a time saver, especially in play-by-post games. Instead of an hours long exchange to decide whether something can be done and what it involves, the player takes care of it in a single post.
And another purpose is the control I mentioned. The point of
that is also manifold. For one thing, it lets the player have their character achieve things they think it makes sense for the character to achieve. That, I hope, makes them feel like their character concept is better realized. For another thing, it allows them to spend time on what they want to spend time on. Anything in an RPG can be zoomed in on to turn it into a very intricate set of actions that takes significant time to resolve, but not everything
should be handled that way, and not everyone wants to handle the same things that way. If I'm ready for a haggling scene to be an involved situation, and the player doesn't like haggling, then they should summarize the scene and move us along.
Kessa:
And if so, where do you draw that line for nuance? And how do you establish that with your players so it doesn't seem arbitrary? Because there's still some GM vs player control at work there, I would think?
I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean here, so please correct me if I'm answering the wrong questions.
I try not to draw any lines, but what I'm on the lookout for are wasted effort and disappointment in the players. I try not to put a lot of effort into small sections of my games, because even when the rules are engaged more or less as written, it's easy for a complicated, involved, paced-out situation to never be used or to fall completely flat. I haven't found that the likelihood of that happening decreases if I put in more work, but I'm more likely to take it personally if I put in a lot of work. I know this about myself, so I try not to set myself up for it. However, with the games I play,
some amount of effort is required for me to arrange for things to happen.
If I find that my work is repeatedly proving not to be worth it to me because the players are simply deciding that certain things are true regarding their capabilities then I don't draw a line, I just have a talk. Hey, it seems like you're enjoying having your characters succeed quickly on pretty much everything. That's cool. What sorts of things do you think your character would struggle with accomplishing? What sorts of things would you like to see at stake in such struggles? How long would you want to spend on such struggles? Ideally, I talk to them upfront about this kind of thing, but I know I don't always do that.
Then, I work with what they give me. Since they came up with the core ideas, there's a better chance that they're going to be willing to engage with what I come up with, rather than looking for or creating whatever loophole or shortcut will let them win, but if they keep doing that, and I trust that they're not deliberately trying to waste my time, I just talk to them again.
Ideally, I don't want anything to be considered in terms of "player vs. GM," particularly matters of control, because those are tied very closely to player enjoyment and I don't think enjoyment should ever be at stake. I don't always perfectly achieve that, but I practice it.
I hope I answered your questions in there somewhere. I'd be delighted to discuss this further.