Do you prefer TTRPG combat as war or as sport?

Do you prefer TTRPG combat as war or as sport?


MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Web DM posted an interesting video on Combat as War or Sport? & Adversarial DMs. I thought it would be a good topic to discuss with my esteemed D/GMs here on ENWorld.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

In short, they posit that that their is a continuum of how combat is approached in D&D and similar games from the extreme of Combat as War on one side and Combat as Sport on the other. Combat as War is closer to old-style play—no suprising given the games roots in the wargamming community and the fact that many early players and developers (including Gary Gygax) had military experience. The idea here is to win by any means. NPCs are not going to play fair and if you can avoid a combat or end it quickly with clever tactics that was what you should do. Combat as Sport, on the other hand treat the action as a fun activity that should be properly leveled for the party so that each character gets a moment to shine. You are never pitted against a foe too powerful for you to beat in direct combat. The threat of actual player death is low and/or it is easy to be brought back to life.

Most games play combat somewhere in the middle.

Note that when they talk about adversarial DMs in the combat-as-war tradition, they are focusing more on the DMs playing the NPCs to their fullest. DM tries to play them to beat the party. Now, that could be unfair, because a DM can ALWAY beat the party as they have unlimited power over their worlds. But I think fair adversarial DMs would create challenging situations that test they tactical and creative ability of the players. This style puts an emphasis on PLAYER skill. The more modern style of combat-as-sport seems to focus on CHARACTER skill more. This style allows a witless player to still have fun because their character is a bad-ass genius.

Where your game lies on this continuum depends on the makeup of your players and probably swerves from one direction to the other from session to session.

Why is your group's preferred style and why? What does a good GM need to know about how to run engaging games in either style — or more challenging, how to deal with groups with a mix of war/sport players?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Libramarian

Adventurer
I think you're making the same mistake many people made in interpreting Daztur's War vs Sport thread. The metaphor is not about the consequences for losing (death vs temporary defeat), but the scope the players have for pre-battle strategy. It's closely related to sandbox vs. scene framing. With combat-as-war/sandbox, the players make more decisions, so on the face of it the outcome is a fairer representation of their playing ability. However the import of each decision is more diffuse, so play is less consistently intense than a combat-as-sport/scene-framed game. In the thread Daztur uses many exclamation points when describing the CaW bee scenario to ensure it seems exciting but in reality 30 min of pre-encounter planning can be kind of boring sometimes.

I don't associate CaW with adversarial DMing at all; in fact it's really important not to have that mindset when you're making tons of subtle judgement calls about the players' pre-battle schemes. One of the advantages of CaS is DMs don't have to make many of these calls so they actually can take more of an adversarial mindset if they want and play their monsters hard (many people like this about 4e).
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Thank you for the link. Interesting thread. Good point on adversarial DMing not necessarily being tied to the style of combat.
 

If I had to come up with an appropriate analogy for my combat style, it would be a specific sport – pro-wrestling. Mostly it’s about the appearance of great danger and defeat. The players are there to have fun and feel the thrill of victory. I like combat to be flashy and visual, so that they might be stuck fighting duergar while suspended above gleaming red lava. They’ll get burned if they fall in, but they won’t instantly melt.

Buuuttt…sometimes that barbed wire in the ring is really real, sometimes the ref gets knocked out by that heel on the sidelines, and sometimes people do get hurt. For that threat to feel authentic (even when it’s not), there have to be times when there is real danger and peril.

As for combat encounters that rely on player smarts, I will always favor players using their noodles over relying on brute force from their abilities and powers.
 


Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
As a DM
I specifically want my combats to be tough, deadly*. Without risk there is no reward, and my players go by that to varying degrees as well. I write encounters so that if this one doesn't kill you off, the next one will.

BUT, at the table I'm their biggest cheerleader. I want to see them succeed, I want to see how they are going to pull out a victory against all that is arrayed against them. I say yes when they come up with gonzo plans and run with them. This doesn't mean I coddle them - I play the foes as smart as they would be. But not smarter.

In my current campaign (2.5 years) I haven't killed a single character in combat (we did have one campaign death), though I will often drop one or more. We had numerous close calls and several times most PCs down.

Though there are times my players avoid fights altogether because they know it's just a bad idea. There are fights they flee after engaging. And there are curb stomp battles where they realize how awesome they have become.

All of that said, there as aspects of Combat as Sport. I often put in things to showcase various characters - hazards & traps that the rogue is good at handling, etc. As well as occasional times when I purposefully negate their go-to moves to push them out of their comfort zone and make them adapt. (I do this to shake things up occasionally, I'm very against doing it regularly to punish a player who is too effective in their niche.)

As a player
I can spend an entire session roleplaying among the other characters and have fun. But when we get in an encounter, I want it to be an ENCOUNTER. Something we're going to win that is just grinding out attrition is boring. I love encounters when I've got single digit HPs left and I got off easier than some of my teammates. I tell DMs that I haven't gamed with that I am willing to have my character die, though I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't happen. So throw whatever makes sense at us and keep the tension level high.

That said, my favorite combats are where there's more at stake then HPs. Rescues, what-have you. Things that make you adapt and think instead of "just" trying to run the foes out of HPs before you do yourself.
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
As a DM
I specifically want my combats to be tough, deadly*. Without risk there is no reward, and my players go by that to varying degrees as well. I write encounters so that if this one doesn't kill you off, the next one will.

BUT, at the table I'm their biggest cheerleader. I want to see them succeed, I want to see how they are going to pull out a victory against all that is arrayed against them. I say yes when they come up with gonzo plans and run with them. This doesn't mean I coddle them - I play the foes as smart as they would be. But not smarter.

In my current campaign (2.5 years) I haven't killed a single character in combat (we did have one campaign death), though I will often drop one or more. We had numerous close calls and several times most PCs down.

Though there are times my players avoid fights altogether because they know it's just a bad idea. There are fights they flee after engaging. And there are curb stomp battles where they realize how awesome they have become.

All of that said, there as aspects of Combat as Sport. I often put in things to showcase various characters - hazards & traps that the rogue is good at handling, etc. As well as occasional times when I purposefully negate their go-to moves to push them out of their comfort zone and make them adapt. (I do this to shake things up occasionally, I'm very against doing it regularly to punish a player who is too effective in their niche.)

As a player
I can spend an entire session roleplaying among the other characters and have fun. But when we get in an encounter, I want it to be an ENCOUNTER. Something we're going to win that is just grinding out attrition is boring. I love encounters when I've got single digit HPs left and I got off easier than some of my teammates. I tell DMs that I haven't gamed with that I am willing to have my character die, though I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't happen. So throw whatever makes sense at us and keep the tension level high.

That said, my favorite combats are where there's more at stake then HPs. Rescues, what-have you. Things that make you adapt and think instead of "just" trying to run the foes out of HPs before you do yourself.


Can you give some examples of these encounters?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
There was a long and legendary thread* in here a few years ago about this very topic - CaW vs. CaS - and my stance hasn't changed in the meatime: War all the way!

* - I can't find it - please tell me it wasn't lost in the crash! :(

Lanefan
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
There was a long and legendary thread* in here a few years ago about this very topic - CaW vs. CaS - and my stance hasn't changed in the meatime: War all the way!

* - I can't find it - please tell me it wasn't lost in the crash! :(

Lanefan

Is it the thread Datzer started that Libramarian linked to in the second post of this thread?
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
I think that "war" and "sport" are not enough categories. What about "art", like a fight choreographer? or "drama", like a scriptwriter?

I'm also not sure how helpful this analysis is in the end. That is to say, how does this improve our ability to run or craft games?

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app
 

Remove ads

Top