Exactly. They achieve something that should be practically impossible because Tolkien arranged the story elements to make it believable.
Well, firstly, I made that comment to correct the words you put into my mouth. Please, I provide plenty to argue with without you needing to invent arguments for me to make.
Secondly, to take your comment in good faith, of course he does. As the sole author of his fiction, he can do whatever he pleases. A sole author can do whatever they want, no one is arguing differently. But what's being argued about in this thread isn't a fiction story writer's ability to completely direct everything in his story just the way he wants it to be, but a game wherein multiple people have to collaborate to create the fiction. In that case, you don't have control over all of the elements -- there has to be a baseline shared narrative to hang the story on for it to make sense. So, no, in the cases we're arguing, BI does not have the power to dictate everything about the story, he only has the power to dictate his character. The general (BI's character) moves the flags. The heavy cavalry goes in the woods. They suck in woods, and don't accomplish his goals. The general, with a 5 INT, fails his check for tactics and gets his men killed. That's a good game, not one where the general gets to declare his actions and then narrate the results regardless of a die roll. BI failed the INT check here, the mechanics say he doesn't win.
Y
ou seem to know more about historically-accurate heavy cavalry than BoldItalic (or myself) but you seem to mistakenly believe that's a constraint on the fiction.
Sigh. It is a constraint. Absent other information, the existing knowledge about heavy cavalry is the only way to judge that sentence. If you don't call out that something is different from it's real world analogue in your fiction, then the real world is a constraint on that fiction. People will understand it as they know it, not as you mean it but didn't say.
Perhaps his heavy cavalry are mounted on Unicorns, not horses, and they use bows. They are called "Heavy" because his "Light Cavalry" is halflings mounted on giant dragonflies.
It's his obligation to pass that information on, not for me to assume that he means something different from the norm. If he means this, then all you're doing is defending the failure in his story by substituting out a different failure -- from a failure of understanding to a failure of storytelling basics. I'm not sure you're doing BI any favors, here.
I guess you were wrong after all. (Oh, I'm sorry, you "didn't have sufficient information".)
I don't see how you could possibly have the information to say so. You've made something up for someone else and are now declaring it the truth and that others are wrong because they didn't mindread the other poster the way you did. That's a bold claim, and one that's a touch childish.
I'm assuming nothing about your thoughts or motives. I'm using a fantastical analogue (you in 1940-something reviewing a new manuscript) to illustrate my perception of your argument. And it's still my perception so I'll stand by it.
You put words into my mouth, man. You said I'd argue with Tolkien, and, despite my much longer post outlining many arguments, the one you gave primacy to in this post was about me refuting the words you put into my mouth. Here's a good life hack for you -- if you're telling people what they'd do based on your imaginings of the kinds of arguments they'd make, you're assuming motives and thoughts. Not really sure how that could be any clearer. My six year old has occasional trouble with that, but manages to understand it most of the time. She's precocious, yes, but surely you can do better?
But, since you've yet to ask and I'd rather you not continue to use your imagination to invent my arguments, I'll lay them out:
1) I have no real problem with the idea of playing with very loose controls on player narrative ability. I can dig out-of-box roleplaying of ability scores -- low scores are high ability but crippled and high scores as crippled but stupid lucky or touched by outside power. Those are fun, given the right table.
1a) Doing so requires a houserule to relax the definitions of the abilities, which are rules (definitions of terms, even descriptive examples, are rules).
1b) Houserules are cool.
2) The line, for me, is when those descriptions cross into interfering with other mechanics.
2a) LOL runs across this line with ZoT, and other interactions (charm, domination, etc.) Narration that requires action by others to support it is out of bounds -- so LOL narrating that her patron defeats the magic is out of bounds, you only control your character. This can become in bounds so long as the other player agrees -- in this case, that player is the DM, who retains all narrative power for everything not the PCs. If you, as DM, or your DM, if someone else, gifts such power freely, that's cool and in bounds, but the DM has no requirement to do so.
2b) if the table's cool with it, you can let it run, but that's houseruling other mechanics.
2c) houserules are still cool.
3) writing fiction is fundamentally different from a cooperative (or even adversarial, as D&D can do that, too) game that features creating a shared fiction. A single writer of fiction has full power over every facet of their story, a PC in a game only has power over their PC and what the game engine grants. In D&D, it's only over your character -- the game grants all other power to the DM. This means that you can dictate your actions however you wish, but the DM dictates the outcomes and how the world acts. So, you can declare you're sending the cavalry to the woods, but the DM determines what cavalry is (and should have shared that with you well prior to your declaration, or had a few moments discussion right then to make sure there's common ground).
4) I'm not happy when you put words in my mouth and then act like that's a cool thing to do.
Alright, so 4 was a gripe and not an argument. Sue me.
