[RPG] What concrete rules can you point a GM to that is stuck in non-storytelling paradigms for Fate

I can't give you a full list of the occurrences, because they are sprinkled throughout, so I'll focus a bit on why those two examples are expressly called out as deciding them before play.

The reason these are called out is because they have the potential to hurt feelings and cause heated discussions at the table.

Lawbreaker example

First example being the lawbreaker rules. If you break a law of magic, you immediately gain a stunt that costs 1 refresh: Lawbreaker [law number]. Many wizards are probably skirting the line with only 1 refresh remaining, so if they break a law, they are immediately in NPC territory. Thus it's a really really good idea to hash out in your game what precisely constitutes a law violation.

For example, if you burn a building to the ground that might have humans in it, and some of them perhaps died in the crossfire, does that constitute a violation of the 1st law of magic?

Now, you can probably get away doing this during play, so long as you warn the player that he/she is about to become a lawbreaker, and that no further warnings will be issued, yadda yadda. However, I feel that everything goes more smoothly if you hammer this one out before play. Even if you do this, though, you will need to make sure the group is okay with a single player being the final arbiter as well.

Death as a result of being taken out

This is less important, I think, as you generally as a courtesy should inform the players that a given conflict could wind up being lethal before the dice are rolled. That gives them the chance to offer a concession before they, you know, die. You might want to lay out some ground rules with your players first like: "I'll let you know if you think you're likely to die in a combat." Or "I will not inform you if you are going to die as a result of combat, so please keep your wits about you." That way you don't run into any issues when some of Johnny Marcone's thugs come to beat their heads in with baseball bats.

Some other examples

• City and Story themes: These are explicitly defined by the players in the first session, and thus have to be done before play begins.
• How nasty a sponsor for sponsored magic is likely to be: That way the player knows what they're getting into...or that they really have no idea what they're getting into.

There's a distinct demarcation in games between the Player and the Character. And in most games when such things come up, it's relegating the player to the same position as the character- and trying to force the player to solve problems is if he is the character.

There is nothing wrong with that approach, in any game. And there's also nothing wrong with the other approach, either.

One thing that I take into consideration when playing Fate, however, that makes me look at things in a different light is that even less than other games, you're not playing in order to win or even to solve the problem. You're playing to create an interesting story.

It's for that reason that anyone can suggest a compel. And the verbiage on that point is very specifically stated on FC71, i.e. "if a player wants to compel another character, it costs a fate point to propose the complication." As the player sees something interesting that is instrumental to what they want to play, the player can compel someone else's character. That, I think, is an important distinction, and shows what the designer's intent was towards the interaction of players and characters.

So, taking that further towards your own situation, that demarcation between player knowledge and character knowledge only exists in terms of the narrative itself, i.e. if the player suggests something that is dependent on knowledge that the player has- and not the character he is suggesting to has, then there's a distinction that needs to be made for the narrative's sake. But other than that, anything's game, and not only can they suggest, but they can actually affect the other character if it's important enough.