So we agree on the three examples that i gave and what is playing DnD as written and what is a rules Variant.
Is this correct?
I'm... not sure... your examples about tearing off the cover of the book seemed a bit dramatic for me to figure out.
That is true, but the mechanics of combat and the way they relate to the other mechanics in the game. Like primarily discussed way of advancing your character is through combat. Encourages combat in actual play. Its not required but encouraged.
Its like in Settlers of Catan. You can trade resources. You could chose to or chose not to. But the other mechanics of the game (the number of resources and the difficulty in being able to produces them all)encourage you to trade and in turn bargain.
Certainly -- but one huge mistake that I think a lot of analysis makes is assuming that the only rewards in games are in the form of points of some kind.
Certainly -- for me, and for many others, -- the most important rewards come from enjoying the fictional world generated... enjoying the experience of playing one's character... enjoying the in-character dialog, etc.
In many cases the reward systems provided by things like XP or in-game currency are the least interesting and effective in encouraging gamer behavior.
Its not simply a choice at that point. If you get a group of DnD players together to play a gave where they "wanted good roleplay and dialog". An agreement to be in the game is an agreement to play in that manner. This agreement then becomes a mechanic of the game.
In the idea of mechanics put forth by MDA is more broad than just what people usually consider "game rules". Do you consider setting a game rule? MDA considers it a Mechanic.
An agreement becomes a mechanic? Really?
If I'm playing Halo with my buddies and we agree to use code-names instead of real names, is that a 'mechanic'?
Are they no longer playing Halo?
No -- of course not. Your definition of what constitutes a mechanic is, I think, strange and overly-restrictive. And not part of the MDA model. Player decisions and choices can't violate the game rules (without changing the game), but so long as they make choices that the game allows, they're playing in the game... even when those choices are different from the ones you make.
I mean, I keep asking this:
If I choose to value roleplaying and dialog -- if everyone at the table makes that choice -- am I violating a D&D rule?
I'm not (right? You haven't really addressed this question, so I'm trying to be very explicit here).
I'm not ignoring a rule. I'm not ammending a rule. I'm not doing *anything* except playing straight-up D&D...
So why on earth would anyone look at that play and think I was changing the game?
Cheers,
-E.