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

GSHamster

Adventurer
I'm trying to think of good way to explain my aversion to Combat as War.

The thing is that I love the paladin archetype. I aspire to be Don Quixote de la Mancha, and I just do not see Combat as War treating that ideal with any sort of respect or grace. Listen to the lyrics of the song below. To me, you just cannot square those ideals with CaW, they are the antithesis of each other.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjGlgmSJ8o]Brian Stokes Mitchell - 57th Tony Awards - Man of La Mancha -Fixed.avi - YouTube[/ame]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kynn

Adventurer
To me, the fundamental problem with the CAW/CAS analysis is the presumption that the two are exact opposites or even the two endpoints of a variable dial.

Code:
CAW-----------------------CAS

Instead, I think that it's better represented as two different dials or axes, if you will.

Code:
Highly CAS
/|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 +------------------------> Highly CAW

So some people might prefer a lot of both, some might prefer a little of neither, some may go for a lot of one or the other.

But presenting the two play styles as diametrically opposed seems both incorrect and unnecessarily divisive.
 

Hassassin

First Post
So some people might prefer a lot of both, some might prefer a little of neither, some may go for a lot of one or the other.

But presenting the two play styles as diametrically opposed seems both incorrect and unnecessarily divisive.

So what does highly CAS, highly CAW play look like?

I think pretty much all players prefer something between the two extremes, but I don't really see how you can have a lot of both.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
So what does highly CAS, highly CAW play look like?

I think pretty much all players prefer something between the two extremes, but I don't really see how you can have a lot of both.

I'd presume that a highly CAS, highly CAW game is where the PCs are usually outmatched, and so have to engage in a high degree of CAW in order to level the playing field enough to then engage in CAS.
 

For the remainder we might ask questions like "why didn't the enemy just burn the tower?" Isn't the answer mostly "because that wouldn't be fun"? Granted the DM probably constructed some logic to explain why these unfun things didn't happen, but was that logic not at some level a fig leaf?

The tower is made of stone, with battlements on top. The landward part is behind a curtain wall, and the riverward side is right over a river. You could try to burn the dock (which might not be all that successful since it's over a river), but it wouldn't do much to accomplish the goal of the raiders.

Their goal is to cause a distraction for the minor nobles of the land, so that they will want to keep their militias for home defense, rather than sending them to the front to fight a war as the ruler (the Margrave of Bissel) demands. This will weaken Bissel in the war, because fewer troops will be available at the front, and because it will cause political disputes, as the nobles who comply feel animosity for those who do not. Essentially, it's a terrorist mission.

Also, the raider force doesn't have a lot of arcane magic. It's lead by a half-orc assassin who's also a werewolf, as are his main colleagues. The most powerful spellcaster is a cleric of Iuz. The bulk of the manpower (er, orcpower) of the force at Orc Warrior 1's -- some infected with lycanthropy to make them much more deadly, some not yet infected. Plus lycanthropy is a really good way of spreading terror among the non-adventurers.

The enemy actually DID use flaming arrows to burn down the outlying village they attacked earlier. When the players were alerted to the attack, the PC with Horseshoes of Speed on his horse sped off and arrive there before the rest. He had a Crossbow with longer-range (I forget the rule reason) and a bunch of silver bolts, so he managed to cause enough damage to the werewolf leaders that they decided to retreat and let the fleeing villagers go -- only a handful died in the battle, which I fought out round by round for all the orcs and the village militia (lots of d20's, and lots of time since it's an email campaign). He actually got knighted for that. :)

How is that related to CaW v. CaS? Well, the enemy are actually being played as fully autonomous roleplayed creatures, with goals and actually trying to win. They had a mission before the PC's arrived, and if the PC's don't stop them, they'll try their darnedest to succeed at it -- the direct assault on the tower was only a second best to their original plan to raid the riverside villages and infect the locals with lycanthropy. And for the PC's, logistical elements like having Horseshoes of Speed turned out to be really important. The "fun" was mostly for the one the PC, while the others hurried, hurried to a fight that was over when they arrived.

I can't really imagine running the village attack scenario in a CaS game -- it wouldn't be fun to have all those NPC's doing a lot of the action, and only one PC getting to do something, and having him "spam" by following the same actions -- mounted crossbow firing, retreating from the enemy as needed and then sniping some more -- wouldn't be fun either.

I'm not trying to imply that "all out war" doesn't exist as a THEME, but I am stating it really isn't viable for a game to actually do it. There are always limits, even if they're rather implicit and now and then violated. The DM always limits the capabilities of the bad guys and does so in ways that tend to put the initiative in the hands of the players. This is of course also partly just a matter of DM resources. There are many players and only one DM. The players, if they're reasonably active and energetic, will always be a major generator of the action driving the story simply because they can focus more on that and they have more mental bandwidth. Still there's a residuum at the very least of "Lets not push it that far, it will stop being fun".

Thus my assertion that at some level there is always an element of sport in the game. It may be more or less explicit, but always exists.

I guess, but I think there's a pretty wide spectrum of how the game can be played. <shrug>
 

As a DM, you don't have the benefit of being able to control things with enough precision to use these techniques. You don't control the PCs actions and you don't control their die rolls. It's likely that when you WANT the PCs to do a drag out, big battle that they'll instead just do something anticlimactic and defeat the enemy in one shot.

As DM, I'm neutral. I don't care if the PC's defeat the enemy by direct assault, sneakiness, or some other way I never imagined.

I enjoy setting up the milleau and seeing them go do what they want to do.

The set piece battle that I've carefully calibrated so they can barely win is less common in this (CaW) approach, but it's not the primary source of fun for me as DM.
 

I'm trying to think of good way to explain my aversion to Combat as War.

The thing is that I love the paladin archetype. I aspire to be Don Quixote de la Mancha, and I just do not see Combat as War treating that ideal with any sort of respect or grace. Listen to the lyrics of the song below. To me, you just cannot square those ideals with CaW, they are the antithesis of each other.

How odd. Paladins are my favorite class -- my first PC was one, and my 4e PC is one too -- but I always preferred CaW.

I just never figured out what precisely I liked (and didn't like) until I read this thread.

I suspect either we have different understandings of what CaW is, or different understandings of paladins? Certainly, differences on paladins are super common, eh? :)
 

The Shaman

First Post
2a0bcc0b.jpg


CaW. Yeah, it's like that.
 

The Shaman

First Post
That's what random determination is for.
Yup.

At this point, I'd have to ask "What kind of world do you think the PCs live in?" All of these posts saying that the DM has the ability to do all sorts of incredibly one-sided things to the PCs have to ask that question. That's what DMs, in effect, ask themselves. What constraints to the NPCs live under? What prevents the thieves guild from performing any sort of strike against the PCs? In some ways, this is why we like a lot of verisimilitude in our games. We draw on real world inspirations. If we break out of the boundaries we perceive as realistic, simply because the NPCs have the mechanical ability to do so, it doesn't feel right.
Yup.

Crappy antagonistic DMing is where the DM ignores versimilitude and plausibility to kill the PCs. If you are going after the Mexican drug cartel in-game, then "picking the guy off when he goes to the loo" is exactly the sort of thing the cartel should attempt, within the limits of their capabilities. Crappy antagonistic DMing comes in when the DM makes the cartel implausibly omniscient and omnicompetent, not when he has them react entirely plausibly and use the sort of resources that should be available to them.
Yup.


Sorry to prattle on so.
 

The thing is that I love the paladin archetype. I aspire to be Don Quixote de la Mancha, and I just do not see Combat as War treating that ideal with any sort of respect or grace. Listen to the lyrics of the song below. To me, you just cannot square those ideals with CaW, they are the antithesis of each other.

Hmm... would it help to say that CaS is about setting out on that quest as a quest of honour, CaW is about working out how to Fight the Impossible Fight and win? Or about marching into hell successfully?
 

Remove ads

Top