[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...

Jools · Feb 6, 2012

Jeez people, what's wrong with you? I just read the first 30 posts of this thread and they are utter gold. The reason this thread is so great is that the original poster has come up with a way of comparing and contrasting two different styles of D&D without childishly attacking one or the other (as - rather sadly - is so often the way whenever game styles are compared in message boards). Then I skip ahead to the last 30 posts in the thread and its the usual tripe of people arguing whether 4e is a board game or not. Is that really relevant? Is that really what this thread is about?

Transformer · Feb 6, 2012

Jeez people, what's wrong with you? I just read the first 30 posts of this thread and they are utter gold. The reason this thread is so great is that the original poster has come up with a way of comparing and contrasting two different styles of D&D without childishly attacking one or the other (as - rather sadly - is so often the way whenever game styles are compared in message boards). Then I skip ahead to the last 30 posts in the thread and its the usual tripe of people arguing whether 4e is a board game or not. Is that really relevant? Is that really what this thread is about?

Yeah, way to editionwarify the best thread ever, guys.

Anyway, does anyone else think it's easier for any system to accommodate CaW than it is for any system to accommodate CaS? I mean, you can take a system that's mainly about CaS and do a lot of CaW with it, if the system helps out at least a little and the DM's good at it. But a system that really doesn't strive for the kind of level-by-level and encounter-by-encounter balance and the kind of setpiece encounter design that CaS works on, that'd be awfully hard to run a CaS game with.

I'm not trying to trumpet 4th edition over 3rd edition here. 3rd did, after all, have encounter balance tools, and it had a pretty great sweet stop from, like, 4th to 12th level where the party was usually reasonably balanced and CaS wasn't terribly hard if the DM knew his party's capabilities. And it is true that 4e's powers sometimes had the psychological effect of limiting players' options (Disarm is a power. Can I disarm using pg. 42? If so, why take the power? That sort of thing). But something tells me it's a lot easier to run a CaW game with 4e than it is to run a CaS game with a system that isn't even trying to allow tight encounter balance.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

Hassassin · Feb 6, 2012

Transformer said:
Anyway, does anyone else think it's easier for any system to accommodate CaW than it is for any system to accommodate CaS? I mean, you can take a system that's mainly about CaS and do a lot of CaW with it, if the system helps out at least a little and the DM's good at it. But a system that really doesn't strive for the kind of level-by-level and encounter-by-encounter balance and the kind of setpiece encounter design that CaW works on, that'd be awfully hard to run a CaS game with.

You are probably correct. However, I think DM skill is part of the equation: a good DM can run CAW using practically any system, while even a good DM will be hard pressed to run CAS if the system does nothing to support it. I'm not sure how much the system needs to accommodate each if you assume poor DM skills, but I think it's more equal.

'Arry · Feb 6, 2012

Noumenon said:
I'm just skipping ahead from page 3 to say I hate combat-as-war and I can't finish reading the thread because I'm getting so mad at people talking about it like it's fun.

I think I'm learning something about myself today...

So if I find CaW fun I am wrong. Yes?

Nagol · Feb 6, 2012

Transformer said:
Yeah, way to editionwarify the best thread ever, guys.

Anyway, does anyone else think it's easier for any system to accommodate CaW than it is for any system to accommodate CaS? I mean, you can take a system that's mainly about CaS and do a lot of CaW with it, if the system helps out at least a little and the DM's good at it. But a system that really doesn't strive for the kind of level-by-level and encounter-by-encounter balance and the kind of setpiece encounter design that CaS works on, that'd be awfully hard to run a CaS game with.

I'm not trying to trumpet 4th edition over 3rd edition here. 3rd did, after all, have encounter balance tools, and it had a pretty great sweet stop from, like, 4th to 12th level where the party was usually reasonably balanced and CaS wasn't terribly hard if the DM knew his party's capabilities. And it is true that 4e's powers sometimes had the psychological effect of limiting players' options (Disarm is a power. Can I disarm using pg. 42? If so, why take the power? That sort of thing). But something tells me it's a lot easier to run a CaW game with 4e than it is to run a CaS game with a system that isn't even trying to allow tight encounter balance.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

I run a lot of different game systems. My favourite for CAS-style gaming is CHAMPIONS. Base CHAMPIONS is hard to run a CAW-style. PCs have almost no consumable resources (there are 3: Body which is physical resilience and heals over months but is rarely damaged, Stun which represents consciousness and heals over seconds, and Endurance which powers actions and heals over seconds). Additionally, the base game discourages using found or improvised equipment (all aspects of the character -- including gear -- is purchased with character points).

This really restricts CaW play as there are many fewer points of attack and few trade-offs that can be made. At that point, you are only looking to take advantage of environmental effects and trying to choose battles where you can control the number and identity of opponents.

It is telling that Fantasy Hero, the fantasy sourcebook for CHAMPIONS, put back a longer-term resources ike Long Term Endurance (heals over hours), acquiring items from the field, etc.

Nagol · Feb 6, 2012

'Arry said:
So if I find CaW fun I am wrong. Yes?

No.

It is just that you and Noumenon are unlikely to enjoy each other's games.

ExploderWizard · Feb 6, 2012

Gentlegamer said:
I want to thwart the evil priest's plan by producing a document in his own hand authorizing whatever I do. And then have the evil priest promote me into the king's guards.

Evil priest?

The Shaman · Feb 6, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
We are talking about games that came out within a couple years of the 'first' RPG. I could call them 'early' or 'primeval' or 'less evolved' or a lot of other things, but if I don't call them something that indicates they antedated any advancements or improvements in the 'industry,' over the last 30 years or so, I'd be lying.

Games have not improved. They have diversified in approach and they have increased in complexity, but they are not better or more advanced - they are simply different.

herrozerro · Feb 6, 2012

While I think DMs that can be completely impartial are awesome I dont think it really works in practice.

The CAW style for me relies too much on the granularity of setting up the opposition, in my experience you need to have counter magics to even setup a challenge alot of the time, it just becomes a game of one up. The baddies have a super super secure base? Well just teleport in. Oh the baddies just reinforced their base with anti teleporting shields, well lets get a passwall spell just to walk through the walls instead. the baddies have another ... etc.

Personally I dont like the above style of game. I prefer a game where you dont nessessarly have to worry about having the super weapon to nullify the baddies defenses to that you are assured to win.