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

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks to the OP for an insightful new aspect by which to examine game design and player preferences. It certainly explains certain disagreements I've had with others in the past.

I'd say I'm primarily a CaS style DM/ player.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy CaW play occasionally. I find that when limited, it certainly does add a nice sense of variety. However, I do not enjoy constant CaW play.

I felt very constrained in the 2e/3e days because, despite wanting to play in a CaS style game, I tended to feel like the system forced me to play CaW. I wanted to play the brave and honorable knight, but that type of play tended to get one killed. Dungeon doors, for example, were typically approached as though we were a bomb squad on high alert. Getting killed randomly by an unexpected trap was something no one was eager for.

We still do the occasional bit of CaW in 4e. A while ago, instead of charging into a heavily defended fortress, we instead challenged the leader to a duel for control of the fort. He set the terms of the duel (2 v 2) and that we'd be eaten if we lost (they were cannibals). We won (though it was quite a tough fight), and though we missed out on some xp and treasure, we attained our goal with arguably greater ease.

That's the kind of CaW I enjoy. We didn't make the final conflict anticlimactic, but we did cut away a good amount of interim content. Our hard fought duel was far more fun than dropping a roof on the leader's head would have been.

I like CaS because, with a tactically minded DM, it can be extremely challenging. A CaS DM, in 4e, can legitimately do his best to kill the PCs in every fight. He doesn't have to hold back at all. You get a pretty consistent experience regardless of whether Bob or Joe runs the game, assuming they have relatively similar tactical acumen.

For those who've said that CaS is easy, that's silly. You can make CaS as easy or as difficult as the group prefers. If you exceed that preference, of course, you'll most likely encourage a CaW style of play.

CaW, on the other hand, is quite subjective. Joe might let me use kegs of oil to blow up a bridge. Bob, on the other hand, might rule that all I do is light a fire on the bridge, because oil isn't explosive. Even if they both believe that oil is explosive, Joe might feel that 2 kegs is enough, while Bob thinks 200 kegs is more realistic.

I guess a good way of putting it is that (for me) CaS is like Knightmare Chess, while CaW is more akin to Apples to Apples. I enjoy both games, but I prefer my D&D to be CaW optional or CaW lite.

Don't get me wrong, I comprehend that plenty of people enjoy CaW and I'm not saying that any of you are wrong to do so. I'm simply another voice trying to lend insight into why some of us prefer CaS.

 

[Libramarian]

-- 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.

CAW has a pretty dicey relationship with verisimilitude I think. I see what you're saying but I also see what an earlier poster said about CAW leading to silliness.

I actually would say I like it mostly in terms of it being a fun challenge.

As I said earlier in the thread, the basic design problem for D&D adventures is how to keep the PCs alive across a long string of challenges while making each individual challenge look scary and dangerous.

I look at CAW as a great way to accomplish this. The players are empowered to massage the difficulty down to an acceptable level via rules-skirting fictional negotiation. Which lets the DM to care less about pre-play balancing.

I prefer this to a series of CAS encounters systematically designed for the PCs to win.

 

[Daztur]

CaW, on the other hand, is quite subjective. Joe might let me use kegs of oil to blow up a bridge. Bob, on the other hand, might rule that all I do is light a fire on the bridge, because oil isn't explosive. Even if they both believe that oil is explosive, Joe might feel that 2 kegs is enough, while Bob thinks 200 kegs is more realistic.
...
I'm simply another voice trying to lend insight into why some of us prefer CaS.

Thanks for the post. I'm very happy so many fans of 4ed agreed with my post and saw my formulation of CaS as something they enjoy. I think that your example of cutting through all of the interim fights and getting to the big showdown fight is a good example of CaS thinking since those fights don't serve all that much of a purpose from a CaS point of view.

As far as CaW being subjective, I don't think it's necessarily as subjective as you think it is (although it certainly can be at the hands of many DMs). A lot of the "fluff" in TSR D&D isn't really fluff so much as CaW crunch that's there to give the DM something to look at as an alternative to fiat if they're so inclined. Stuff like monster ecology write-ups and the nitty-gritty of spell descriptions go a long way towards removing some of the subjectivity of CaW.

However, you're right that overall a CaW DM is going to be more subjective in running the results of a conflict but, on the other hand, TSR-D&D gives the DM tools to remove other kinds of subjectivity. Stuff like morale rules and all of the random tables and random changes of X listed in the rules (especially wandering monster tables) give the DM rules that they can choose to use that remove the subjectivity from parts of DMing that are usually handwaved by 3ed and 4ed DMs, so there's less subjectivity in the "what conflicts do the PCs run into" side of the equation. For example in my B5 (Horror on the Hill) games, the party ran into some very nasty conflicts but none of those nasty conflicts came as a result of DM subjectivity, they all cropped up as a result of bad luck and bad decisions on the players' part.

 

[Daztur]

CAW has a pretty dicey relationship with verisimilitude I think. I see what you're saying but I also see what an earlier poster said about CAW leading to silliness.

One source of this silliness can be PC behavior that clashes hard with the tropes of the assumed setting. For example if you're playing a high fantasy setting and the players act like typical blood thirsty PCs that contrast can be jarring (see the DM of the Rings webcomic strip for a great example of this). What helps is to make the setting fit PC behavior instead of trying to force PC behavior into the mold of the setting ("come on guys! You're supposed to be the heroes!"). This worked well in a Viking campaign that I ran, no matter what sort of stunt the PCs did I could just nod approvingly and tell them about how Egil Skallagrimson topped it.

Of course that does make a lot of sub-genres of fantasy off-limits, but then CaW and High Fantasy just don't tend to mix very well (although it works with Tolkien as is noted in the previous page since Tolkien doesn't have a lot of the stuff that has accreted onto High Fantasy over the years).

 

[Daztur]

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.

Yup, I'm reading back through this thread now (virus + toddler and baby = pretty damn far behind) and this is a good characterization. However, CaW is often the most fun when it alternates between "total domination" (the players are screwing someone else over heist style) and "survival" (the players are trying to avoid someone else screwing them over Oregon Trail style).

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.

Well if you look through the 1ed DMG and circle all of the bits that don't have an equivalent in WotC-D&D DMGs then a whole lot of that is CAW rules (alongside of a lot of other genius, madness and mad genius). For example, a lot of things that most modern DMs would think of as being obviously something that a DM should just make up at whim has specific rules in a 1ed DMG hidden away in some random corner somewhere.

 

[S'mon]

For example in my B5 (Horror on the Hill) games, the party ran into some very nasty conflicts .

What level did you run Horror on the Hill for, BTW? I ran it with 2nd-3rd level 3.5e PCs who had been through B7 Rahasia, while keeping the BECMI stats mostly unaltered, and they *still* found it very, very hard. In the final battle in the throneroom, amongst a sea of bodies the last PC standing, the Cleric, was out of spells and grappling the last hobgoblin royal guard, they were reduced to stabbing each other with daggers! With some lucky rolls the STR 10 Cleric somehow managed to stab the last hobgoblin to death, then dragged out the body of the only other surviving PC. It was epic, but it was really nasty!

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

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

I'm not sure that LotR is any type of war - but it's not especially gritty AD&D.

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)

Why impossible in 4e?

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

I've never sen this sort of thing in AD&D. It's the sort of thing I'd expect in a game with relationship/desinty mechanics (likewise Bard shooting down Smaug).

]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

Sound like skill challenges to me.

 

[Grandpa]

Enjoyable thread.

When someone mentioned that D&D is often players' first introduction to the hobby, I wondered whether a CAS or CAW system would be a better introductory point.

CAS games like 4E seem to curb the negative and positive effects of DMs. I like 4E because it dulls my fear of doing a bad job while I gain skill and confidence as a DM. As someone that tries to bring new players into the hobby, my DM fear is powerful, haunted by profoundly negative experiences playing CAW games with awful DMs. But my desire to share comes from the profoundly positive experiences I've had playing CAW games with fantastic DMs.

4E is my a comfortable compromise, allowing me to stumble and make mistakes while my players have a relatively good time. An extreme example of this dynamic takes place in a 4E game I play in, with an old school DM that appears to hate the system and not enjoy himself while his players still enjoy themselves and repeatedly ask for more. I just wish 4E mechanics encouraged players to test the adjudication of their DMs more and more as it garnered positive results, creating a mechanical path to build and capitalize on growing DM muscle.

I suspect that players passionate enough to visit RPG message boards and conventions probably had / have amazing dungeon masters that made a CAW game with high risk and reward sing, but I wonder whether good DMs or bad DMs are a more common introduction to the hobby and how an introductory CAW or CAS game play into that experience. I also wonder how realistic of a goal it is to support both.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for the post. I'm very happy so many fans of 4ed agreed with my post and saw my formulation of CaS as something they enjoy. I think that your example of cutting through all of the interim fights and getting to the big showdown fight is a good example of CaS thinking since those fights don't serve all that much of a purpose from a CaS point of view.

IMO, it was more CaW thinking, though from a CaS mentality. We managed to skip about half a dozen fights against tough creatures, meaning that we also lessened the danger. Admittedly, true CaW thinking would have been to poison their water supply (or some such) and wait for them to die.

As far as CaW being subjective, I don't think it's necessarily as subjective as you think it is (although it certainly can be at the hands of many DMs). A lot of the "fluff" in TSR D&D isn't really fluff so much as CaW crunch that's there to give the DM something to look at as an alternative to fiat if they're so inclined. Stuff like monster ecology write-ups and the nitty-gritty of spell descriptions go a long way towards removing some of the subjectivity of CaW.

However, you're right that overall a CaW DM is going to be more subjective in running the results of a conflict but, on the other hand, TSR-D&D gives the DM tools to remove other kinds of subjectivity. Stuff like morale rules and all of the random tables and random changes of X listed in the rules (especially wandering monster tables) give the DM rules that they can choose to use that remove the subjectivity from parts of DMing that are usually handwaved by 3ed and 4ed DMs, so there's less subjectivity in the "what conflicts do the PCs run into" side of the equation. For example in my B5 (Horror on the Hill) games, the party ran into some very nasty conflicts but none of those nasty conflicts came as a result of DM subjectivity, they all cropped up as a result of bad luck and bad decisions on the players' part.

I realize that there was some amount of structure built into CaW in earlier editions (fireballs not creating much pressure, but filling a given volume). Nevertheless, the vast majority of such play (IME) ends up being off the cuff based on necessity.

For example, if I set off a fireball in an airtight room, how much of the air does the fireball consume? It's been a while since I've read my TSR books, but I'm fairly certain they do not offer an answer. So Joe might rule that magical flame doesn't consume oxygen and therefore everyone is fine, while Bob rules that everyone in the room suffocates.

I think what you're referring to is the impartiality the CaW style. Which is true; a good CaW DM does his best to remain impartial at all times. However, in my experience, there nonetheless exists a level of subjectivity irrespective of that impartiality.

If Bob and Joe both roll for a random Gnoll encounter, Bob might decide that the gnolls are pursuing some escaped slaves and won't bother with the party unless they interfere, while Joe tells his players to roll for initiative. Both are impartial, as the DMs framed the encounter in reasonable terms of why the gnolls might be there (hunting escaped slaves vs trying to enslave the party), but they're also different based on decisions the two DMs made to subjectively frame the scene.

I'm not sure that I'd include morale rules in CaW though. Those could be just as easily a CaS mechanic (fight the battle but skip the grind). I think morale is Ca neutral. Random tables certainly do help to further the cause of the impartial DM though.

FWIW, I do find the trait of impartiality admirable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Very often in my email campaign, less often in my "live" at a table campaign. Probably because I have more time to cogitate in the email campaign, and do more customized adventures (versus running commercial adventures as written).

The monsters always use CaW tactics (fight to win) and often go on the offensive or use sneaky tactics if it's helpful for them.

Some recent CaW actions by enemies in the email campaign:
-- Slowly building up a plot to take over a city that the PC's haven't noticed yet.
-- Gathering hobgoblins and some giants to obviously threaten a town, with the real goal being to ambush the reaction force (and distract them from the city that's the strategic target). Foiled by PC's!
-- Infilrating the town and getting their people into jobs as bodyguards for the ruler. Foiled by PC's!
-- Attacking a village to slaughter people and cause internal disruption, keeping nobles in the center of the country from moving their feudal hosts to the front. Oh yeah, and infect some survivors with lycantrophy. Pretty much a draw, though the PC's tracked down all the werewolves.
-- Assaulting a noble's tower from the front, while the assassin attempted to swim up, climb a wall, and break into the chapel -- their plan before the fight, and they got super lucky that the PC's put the guy they were guarding there! The enemy got super unlucky though, when the NPC Aristocrat target desparately tried a Bull Rush and succeeded in knocking the Boss Monster/Assassin out the window and back into the river! PC's win!

Recently in the "live" campaign:
-- During a fight, the enemy pulled in everyone from several rooms that they could alert, for what became a very tough fight.

Note that a lot of these plots would be pretty similar to what I did in running RECON (Vietnam War Long Range Recon Patrol RPG), so nor just CaW but "Fantasy Vietnam", though I suspect other people mean other things by that!

Well, I'm not sure I'd distinguish most of your examples as CaW or CaS since mostly they're a bit above the level of tactical or operational play and more into the realm of 'story arc'. 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?

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.