No, I don't. But I'll wait and see if they at least make it more 3rd ed. than 2nd., which I hate with a fiery passion.

Which I do anyway, but having some guidelines for what's intended would be nice. Using Heraldric Lore as an example...if it's meant to be "You know what heraldry belongs to whom", I'm going to use it in a much different fashion than if it means "You know how to interpret the symbolism of heraldry". I'm not even sure how to differentiate Wilderness Lore vs. Natural Lore without wandering into Dick GM territory.

I don't need an in depth explanation or hard and fast rules. But at least point me the right direction.

In fairness, the playtest package includes a DM information document which does some of this. On the other hand, I am actually okay with skills overlapping at their edges. Maybe someone with Heraldic Lore (to use your example) knows both "what heraldric crests belong to which noble family" and "how to interpret heraldric symbolism". The former overlaps a bit with what we used to call Knowledge: Nobility; but while you might be able to recognize a crest, you might not know much else about that family.

And these overlapping boundaries might change from game to game and group to group. That's okay though! It allows us to build a more realistic picture of what a character actually knows, rather than an assumption that all characters with X skill know about these static things. People have weird holes in their knowledge and weird tidbits they've picked up. Characters should too.

I went through it, but I didn't see much elaboration on what covers what. To your example, I'd likely allow that anyway if asked. I'm generally pretty inclusive. We're still in pure fiat territory, though, and that's what concerns me both from a player/GM perspective and a design perspective. If a large chunk of the game anounts to "GM Fiat solves this!"...then why should I play it?

The spectre of GM Fiat is monkeypoo. (<--overstatement for effect) In the games I've played, what other people call GM Fiat, I've called basic sense. It's not like the GM proclaims from his high throne and everyone else suffers under his yoke. Rather, everyone at the table (potentially) is involved, and has the chance to add perspective. If the GM decides X, and X makes sense, no problem and everyone's happy, all resolved in a second or two. If the GM decides Y, and Y is flawed, then people ask questions, make suggestions, not starting fights but just talking it over, and the GM modifies, if reasonable, to Z (or sticks with Y if there are other factors of which the players are unaware).

If you are playing with decent folks, it's not a power issue, and not a problem. If you are playing with assholes, stop. D&D is not a competition between GM and player so there does not need to be a lot of hemming and hawing about who has the power, and fiats, and etc. Having everything dictated by fiddly rules just means that the rules have the power, and we have to hope that the game's designers were somehow so prescient that they knew better than we what makes sense moment-to-moment in our games.

To put it another way: I have far more faith in the frontal cortex than a pre-defined rule. Human beings have phenomenal capacity to consider a host of facts and fine subtleties at once, juggle social and communication needs while they do so, and come to a darn good decision. Rules don't.

Rules have a vital place, but they do not deserve primacy of place over the human mind.

If you are signed up for the play test the first poll is going up tomorrow. This will tell R&D where to nip and tuck. I encourage you to place your vote there.

This is a great place to be in if you've got a viable home game. If, however, you're on the convention circuit, it's nowhere near as easy as just walking away. Games that rely heavily on GM fiat tend to have a much greater problem with convention play as a result.

For most games, honestly, this wouldn't mean much to me. But a good deal of D&D IS con-play, and if there's lots of room for DM overreach, then there will be more dissatisfied players.

Good point. I've never done con play (presuming you mean living world and the like), or played with anyone else who had, so the experience is completely foreign to me.

My turn for throwing Monkeypoo (tm).

The mere usage of the word 'fiat' is an intentional attempt to create a negative connotation. GMs should not be in the business of issuing decrees or arbitrary orders.

A high percentage of games that I love are light in the rules department, GM judgement and craft are essential. I'm constantly hearing stories of these games being very successful at conventions. Lady Blackbird is the leader of the pack, but there are at least a dozen others that are doing just as well.

It's also possible that we're looking at a different set of expectations. You might be looking for consistency in execution that sanctioned gaming events seem to crave. I've had one too many soulless grinds for loot and XP to seek that out.
--
TAZ

More or less...with two notable exceptions, I've had absolutely terrible experiences with rules light gaming. That, and when I buy a game I don't want to be reading page after page of "...or do what works for you".