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

[Majoru Oakheart]

I find it hard to beleive that the party did this over the course of 2-3 weeks and he never noticed. or at the very least no minion ran up screaming aobut the killers sweeping through the dungeon.

Well, the adventure is kind of complex. Most of the monsters there weren't actually minions of the Archmage. They were all guardians put there by a rival family. The archmage had already gotten past them and left them there to guard him. Most of them were not intelligent. They were golems, oozes, and mindless undead. The couple that were intelligent were completely insane or not friends with the archmage.

The adventure is Return to Maure Castle by Rob Kuntz. I ran it because I figured it was written by one of the old school authors to put a bit of old school feeling back into my game.

Well, yeah. Such an easy kill shouldn't generate much XP, though.

I disagree. I think level should imply combat strength. If you are level 20, you should fight at level 20 strength. If people get the jump on you, maybe you fight closer to level 18 or 17 strength. If you are super prepared maybe closer to 22nd level strength.

But I think being level 20 should mean a dagger thrown at your back by a level 1 fighter should be the kind of thing you wave your hand at without turning your head away from the book you are reading and it stops in mid air and flies back into the person who threw it, killing them. And this is from completely unprepared for the attack.

OTOH if your M-U 20 is actually supposed to be combat experienced, to have come up the hard way, PC style, then he's not going to behave like the one in that adventure.

No one is prepared for combat 24 hours a day. And the mage in question had been looking at rocks for 20 or 30 years underground without a single disturbance. He knew how to fight, but wasn't expecting one.

Besides, he didn't have time to act. The battle went: "PCs walk around the corner into the room with the archmage, Initiative, PCs cast spells, Archmage dies."

Is that in 3e? 3e's balance is broken. In 1e when the Cleric is casting Harm (if he can get it off, not easy), the Fighter is wearing his girdle of storm giant strength and attacking 5/2 (3/round for Cavalier) for godawful damage, they can easily kill an M-U in one round, other classes in 2.

Yes, it was 3e. The same thing happens in 2e/1e, but you are right, it was less broken. Casters did die VERY easily in 1e/2e. But most things died very easily in those editions. Most of the time it didn't matter if the players came up with a cool trick that instantly killed the enemy or used their sword. The enemy died to either in one round.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Is that in 3e? 3e's balance is broken. In 1e when the Cleric is casting Harm (if he can get it off, not easy), the Fighter is wearing his girdle of storm giant strength and attacking 5/2 (3/round for Cavalier) for godawful damage, they can easily kill an M-U in one round, other classes in 2.

Even 1e is skewed in favour of the casters. According to Gary Gygax himself the point of the powerful martial characters in Unearthed Arcana is to balance them against the casters. It's just that in 3e the problem was much much worse.

 

[haakon1]

To me, "creative" play actively encourages the game to go off of genre. You don't see Gimli or Gandalf or Drizzt or The Seeker(in the TV show at least) doing those kinds of things. They fight the enemy with their weapons and spells.

"The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are CaW.

1st level rogue Bilbo finding the Ring of Power = CaW (possibly in OD&D through 3.5e or Pathfinder, but impossible in 4e, I might add)

Escaping the Nazgul by riding across running water = CaW

Hobbits getting the ents to fight Isengard = CaW

Aragorn gathering the undead to fight Sauron's army = CaW

Hobbit and a woman defeating the head Nazgul through rules lawyering and a massive critical hit = CaW

Frodo and Samwise sneaking around dressed as orcs = CaW

Sending two hobbits to sneak into Sauron's base and sneakily destroy him by a technicality instead of a boss fight = priceless ultimate CaW

 

[Badjak]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but should CaW be defined as when a player makes a decision which a DM must arbitrate without the use of explicit rule, but based on a combination of how the game system arbitrates similar situations and a understanding of how a logical world might operate. Does that make sense?

I'm pretty sure based on the OP that I have played and enjoyed both styles of DnD, but only in a CaW game have I ever seen players or DM's get upset or walk out on a game. To me (regardless of what system you use) this is one problem I've had with CaW games. Having to come up with rules for player creativity can lead to all kinds of conflict. More charismatic (or pushy) players can steamroll over a less prohibitive DM. Or everyone goes away unhappy because what one person thought was a brilliant out-of-the-box thinking (like lighting a forest on fire to kill some giant bees) is to another person just a dumb idea.

 

[haakon1]

That's two 6th level spells, only useable vs non-flying/levitating foes at range, who are standing on unworked stone.

Seems like the objections to CaW assume play at what I consider high level. In this case, it would be at least a 12th level MU/Wizard casting his two most powerful spells. I've only played at that high a level twice in 30 years of gaming, and it never came up -- probably because we expected a lot more than one encounter per day.

If I was running a (again to me) high level party like that, and they used "go nova Mud-to-Rock and Rock-to-Mud and go bye-bye to the Rope Trick" move, they'd be in trouble against an intelligent enemy like say Drow. After all, their Bag of Holding or Portable Hole can't do in the Rope Trick without exploding (destroying the item and causing other problems I'd look up in the AD&D DMG, regardless of what edition we were playing). So they'd need to leave it outside and perhaps use Invisiblity to hide it. Which would be an obvious tactic for the Drow to search for -- scan the area with Detect Magic, use trackers to see where the party went and search for any signs of their passing or stuff left behind.

And once the PC's are finally caught (eventually, after I need to roll for it on perhaps several attempts, but inevitably if they keep repeating this unwary tactic), who knows, R-M & M-R might even work for the fight against the Drow who lying in wait when they come out of the Rope Trick in the morning, if the Drow weren't aware of early fights. But if any Drow survive or get off a Sending, the Drow will be aware of this tactic, at least for the 2nd Rope Trick morning fight.

So if seems like this sort of "spamming" would not work long term.

To me, I prefer to let actions have consequences and sort themselves out.

What's the CaS way of settling this issue? Just say, "That's lame, don't do that?" That might for me too, if it ever became an issue -- I'm just saying I've never seen "spamming" of tactics, but I assume I'd just keep DMing like I usually do, which I think would resolve the issue.

Another factor might be that I don't:
-- play at an FLGS
-- play at conventions
-- play weekly (at least not since college)

So my players are less expert than folks who play through 50*6 hours of gaming a year (they get more like 20 hours/year these days), and they are less bored with the game? And since we're friends in real life rather than just gaming buddies, they are less interested in char op/oneupsmanship and more willing to role play and team-play, than perhaps would be the case with strangers playing with strangers?

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, just trying to figure out why you guys have the "spamming" problem but I've never seen it . . . our mileage seems to vary quite drastically.

 

[haakon1]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but should CaW be defined as when a player makes a decision which a DM must arbitrate without the use of explicit rule, but based on a combination of how the game system arbitrates similar situations and a understanding of how a logical world might operate. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but I'm not sure it's what CaW is.

To me, well . . . see my manifesto on CaW/grognard play as I love it.

But the short definition, to me is:
-- The goal in CaW is verissimilitude, not "a fun challenge for characters of this level". CaW is open-ended play, where players interact with the setting in unexpected ways, and where combat is unpredictable, unbalanced, and may well go beyond the normal direct attack/direct defense skills and powers on the character sheet. Players are expected to "use any means necessary" to defeat the enemy, and the DM does the same for the NPC's/monsters that are in conflict with the PC's. PC's will face stuff that overmatches them (and are expected to run away or us Kirk/Stargate SG-1 tactical insights to save the day) and encounter that are pushovers (but cause logistical attrition) -- encounters are about what makes sense in the setting, not the level of the PC's. Actions that are outside of any rule book can happen in CaW, but they are not the defining characteristic.


-- The goal in CaS is balance, for a fun game that's geared to challenge characters of the PC's level. The world is just background for the real fun, which is about level appropriate planned encounters where both players and DM "play by rules", using the skills/powers listed on the character sheet. Most fights are fair, with opponents in the same weight class -- encounters with overmatched opponents are boring (since logistics is a background thing, and background is mostly ignored, it just a waste of good gaming time) and encounters with opponents the PC's can defeat by normal means just mean the DM is incompetent.

That about right? Two very different approaches, and to me very illuminating on why it's hard for us to "all just get along". The two camps want almost mirror image different things out of the game!

Even shorter:

CaW = Think like a grunt, or a 1970s wargamer. It's all about verisimilitude in "Magical Mystical War". Fight like your character's life depends on it, and any enemy that gets a shot off might kill you, like it's a war in the real world, where taking a bullet makes it a very bad day, and quite possibly your last day. 'Cause in full CaW DMing with CaW-friendly rules (pre 4e), "one shot, one kill" works both ways!

CaS = Think like a modern computer game designer/player. Fight fair, using the rules in front of you -- using outside-the-book rules is basically cheating and just isn't fun. Obviously "one shot, one kill" isn't going to happen in either direction, because it blows away the chance for a good, rule-using fight, and it just wouldn't be good game design -- Halo and Gears of War and WOW don't have one shot one kill, so neither should D&D -- you shoudn't die until your life bar has gone red and then some. So get on with the game and don't waste my time with extraneous stuff!

 

[S'mon]

Even 1e is skewed in favour of the casters. According to Gary Gygax himself the point of the powerful martial characters in Unearthed Arcana is to balance them against the casters. It's just that in 3e the problem was much much worse.

Pre-UA 1e is a bit biased towards casters at high level, yup. Post-UA 1e is actually biased towards the Fighters at low-mid level, Weapon Spec trebles DPR.
My 1e campaigns used UA and the PCs I recall were Cavalier, Magic-User, Fighter/Assassin, and some Fighters. The M-U avoided letting monsters get near; the others could chop up monsters and NPCs very fast.

 

[Hassassin]

This.

While there are certainly exceptions, most of my experiences with players in role-playing games has them less worried about creating a powerful narrative, or looking for the most creative solution to a given problem, than they are with finding effective solutions. What do they do once they find those solutions?

They spam them as much as they possibly can.

Hence why I think that systems which encourage player tactical creativity and narrative drama tend to somewhat miss the point. Players want their game to make a good story, but that desire is secondary to (or rather, a subset of) wanting to win.

I'm sure there are players who play like that and players who don't. However, I don't see why that would mean player-invented, DM-arbitrated tactics would be any worse than character build derived. Is spamming a tactic involving equipment and environment somehow worse than spamming your highest level powers/spells/whatevers?

 

[Nagol]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but should CaW be defined as when a player makes a decision which a DM must arbitrate without the use of explicit rule, but based on a combination of how the game system arbitrates similar situations and a understanding of how a logical world might operate. Does that make sense?

I'm pretty sure based on the OP that I have played and enjoyed both styles of DnD, but only in a CaW game have I ever seen players or DM's get upset or walk out on a game. To me (regardless of what system you use) this is one problem I've had with CaW games. Having to come up with rules for player creativity can lead to all kinds of conflict. More charismatic (or pushy) players can steamroll over a less prohibitive DM. Or everyone goes away unhappy because what one person thought was a brilliant out-of-the-box thinking (like lighting a forest on fire to kill some giant bees) is to another person just a dumb idea.

CAW can operate with explicit rules. It is more the ability to approach a situation and respond to it successfully in a non-direct manner. It often skirts the main ruleset because those rulesets are designed for direct confrontation.

As an non-RPG example, a WWII war game requires units to draw supply through controlled territory or be at half-strength and limited move. The German player launched a blitzkrieg tank assault that pushed deep into Russia. The Russion player didn't have the strength to engage the tanks so he cut supply and then formed a line to prevent the Germans from re-establishing it. The tanks were nibbled down to nothing over the next couple of turns and the German assault on Russia was lost before a year was out.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I feel the need to make a distinction.

A "Combat as War" game is a game in which the PCs approach combat a certain way - with the goal of avoiding a "fair fight" and seeking total domination of the battlefield.

What you guys are attempting to describe is the set of rules that best support CaW-style play.