quote:
What you want is a narrativist game with fail-forward mechanics. I want to play Burning Wheel too, but we don't always get what we want.
Incorrect. You do not need special mechanics to fail forward. Also, I didn't like burning wheel.
quote:
Part of the compact of sitting at the table to play D&D is that the players all get to be someone heroic.
Incorrect. The pact is that players get to be a protagonist.
quote:
It's a compact that is, by and large, enforced by the mechanics. The mechanics in discussion threaten that part of the compact.
This is where a major assupmtion you are making is causing an issue, because the assumption is false.
That assumption, is assuming that the mechanics have one and only one function and result, that the mechanics in that way are like math. 2 and 3 by any other name always sum to 5.
To use a different example found in language,
A fighter says "I grabbed his sword!" (a clear and solid meaning)
then someone responds "That's what she said!"
Wait, that clear and precise statement just had it's meaning torn out from under it. But what was it that actually changed? Nothing grammatical nor symmantic changed. It was context from
outside the statement that changed everything about what the statement meant, without actually changing anything about the statement itself.
The same applies to rpg mechanics. You can change the context
outside the mechanics to completely alter the meaning and results of the mechanics beyond all recognition. That is Mushu. Mushu is that context outside the mechanics that changes everything about them while leaving them the same.
There is no One True Way for what a mechanic means nor how to use that mechanic.
That is the point. Mushu leaves the mechanics untouched, yet changes
everything about them.
quote:
Arguing that the best way to make a good story in a mechanically intricate system is to ignore the mechanics is pretty unrealistic,
No more unrealistic then a "that's she said" joke. Take away the fighter's statement and the joke no longer works because it has nothing to work on, there isn't anything there to have meaning.
It isn't ignoring mechanics, it is radically changing the context around those mechanics.
Another example is flipping tables.
There is no mechanic for flipping tables, yet mechanics focused players rarely flip tables, even if they do not see it as illegal. That's is because they do not see them as tables. They see only the mechanics, and since the table isn't in the mechanics, they do not see the table when looking for tactical options.
The Mushu player finds flipping the table an obvious option, bevause they do not see mechanics, the see the table as a table because the table is there. They do not need mechanics to tell them what can be done.
Flipping the table is not ignoring the mechanics, it is accepting something beyond the mechanics.
quote:
A character in D&D has no such power.
Firstly, players have as much power in this regard as the group accepts. No mechanics required.
Secondly, a protagonist in a story rarely invents things in the story beyond themself. DnD started as players being the protagonists, not joint storytellers. A major point was for players to
not know about things till they discovered them as their characters discovered them. Much in the same way a reader of Harry Potter has no idea what's behind the door in the third floor corridor till Harry and friends find out, only then do the readers discover this.
This is the default assumption of dnd, yet dnd also assumes that the gm will tear the game apart and rebuild it to suit the needs of campaign and group.
quote:
The argument that Will Turner shouldn't have fought Jack Sparrow is a terrible argument on that basis. If one (or both!) of those characters are players, then of course they are going to have a conflict! And an explosive one! There is chaos all around, Will Turner hates pirates, and Jack Sparrow insulted his unrequited love.
Your mistake here is in not changing the elements around the scene.
If Will wasn't a fighter, and couldn't fight well, then everything about this scene would need to change, as in there wouldn't be a scene about Will confronting a pirate, Jack wouldn't have made comments about unrequited love.
Also, Jack is amazing, but not a protagonist. He makes a terrible protagonist. Here he is a pure supporting character.
Will could fight, hence a scene was needed to showcase that ability and other things were brought in because they could fit the scene well.
If Will wasn't a fighter, then we'd get an entirely different scene showcasing what his skill actually was, and the elements to be brought into the scene woukd depend on what would fit well in a scene showcasing whatever Will's skill was. And a very good chance that Will wouldn't have even encountered Jack as an escapee. Instead, Jack woukd have been caught by the guards and Will would be in the prison finishing up installing some of the prison bars, showcasing his smithing skill and informing us of his intimate knowledge of the cell doors because we see him as the installer (instead of needing him to explain that during the breakout scene). It also introduces them to each other in way where a fight can't break out, yet Will's hatred can still be expressed, Jack can learn Will's name, and things are set up before the breakout scene making the breakout scene run smoother and shorter.
This is just an example, but do you see how making Will a non-fighter changes a lot more than just what happens when two characters enter the same room?
quote:
In the narrative, a fight is the most exciting and interesting way to resolve the tension in the scene.
Incorrect. See chick flicks for good examples of nonviolent yet interesting and exciting resolutions.
quote:
And if the fight is a flaccid, unbalanced affair because of bad mechanics, it's not the narrative's fault.
Nope, and it isn't a bad thing either. Remember the scene of the pirates vs the navy? Totally unbalanced, yet very interesting and entertaining.
Also consider Will in the cave fighting undead pirates. Again, totally unbalanced, Will wins by being creative because skill certainly wasn't enough, and victory only happened because of a noncombat solution, the breaking of the curse. Yet despite facing enemies that couldn't be killed, the fight was still fun, entertaining, and interesting.
quote:
It's the fault of the mechanics, and that's the point of failure that should be addressed,
The mechanics are not the failure. Speaking English in the chinese countryside won't help you, but isn't the fault of English language's design, nor even of language itself. The fault lies with the guy who thinks English should work just fine in China simply because it works in America.
quote:
As an aside, the Hobbits are NPCs in an escort quest.
This is incorrect. It seems that way because your expectations are centered around combat and... no not even heroics, just combat.
The Hobbit is a good example. How often do the characters actually fight in that book? How often do they show themselves as combat capable heroes? In fact, Bilbo, Gandalf, and Bard are the only characters who do heroics, and Bilbo is the only PC and nearly all of his heroics are non-combat creativity. The spiders is questionably combat, but aside from one he tackled al0ne, the rest he didn't actually fight with, but rather taunted and drew away.
Fights and combat are not requirements to be PCs, and once you stop thinking of combat ability as a requirement for PC status, then you might start seeing the virtues of hobbits and other not-so-combat-savvy characters.