RPG Combat: Sport or War?

There are two different extremes in arranging fights. One is like war and the other is like a sporting event. Sporting events are supposed to be fair contests between roughly equal forces. On the other hand, war is the epitome of unfair competition.

View attachment 89692​

Jeffro Johnson introduced me to this topic, which was discussed in an ENWorld forum. If your game doesn't involve much combat this discussion may not mean a lot to you.

Strategem: a plan or scheme, especially one used to outwit an opponent or achieve an end

Any GAME implies fairness, equality of opportunity. Knightly jousting tournaments were combat as sport. We don't have semi-pro soccer teams playing in the Premier League, we don't have college basketball teams playing the NBA, because it would be boringly one-sided. People want to see a contest where it appears that both sides can win. And occasionally the weaker side, the underdog if there is one, wins even when they're not supposed to.

An obvious problem with combat as sport, with a fair fight, is that a significant part of the time your players will lose the fight. Unless they're really adept at recognizing when they're losing, and at fleeing the scene, this means somebody will get dead. Frequent death is going to be a tough hurdle in most campaigns.

The objective in war is to get such an overwhelming advantage that the other side surrenders rather than fight, and if they choose not to surrender then a "boring" one-sided massacre is OK. Stratagems are favored in war, not frowned upon. Trickery (e.g. with the inflation of the football) is frowned upon in sports in general, it's not fair, it's cheating.

Yet "All's fair in love and war." Read Glen Cook's fantasy Black Company series or think about mercenaries in general, they don't want a fair fight. They don't want to risk their lives. They want a surrender or massacre. The Black Company was great at using stratagems. I think of D&D adventurers as much like the Black Company, finding ways to win without giving the other side much chance.

When my wife used to GM first edition D&D, she'd get frustrated if we came up with good stratagems and strategies and wiped out the opposition without too much trouble. She felt she wasn't "holding up the side." She didn't understand that it's not supposed to be fair to the bad guys.

Think also that RPG adventures are much like adventure novels: we have to arrange that the players succeed despite the odds, much as the protagonists in a typical novel. In the novel the good guys are often fabulously lucky; in RPGs we can arrange that the players encounter opposition that should not be a big threat if the players treat combat as war rather than as a sport.

I'm not saying you need to stack the game in favor of the players, I'm saying that if the players do well at whatever they're supposed to do - presumably, in combat, out-thinking the other side -then they should succeed, and perhaps succeed easily. Just like Cook's Black Company.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher
Photo © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.5

 

[billd91]

Now it's safe to say that D&D does a terrible job representing health and combat anyway. Realistically noone would likely have more than 20HP, damage would affect us differently depending on the body part that received the damage and players would drop like flies to mere infections from a glancing blow.


3E rules do worse than trying to emulate physics. They fail at it. They do worse than representing human health, they fail at it. They represent it so badly that WotC rightly discovered that no representation is superior to bad representation.


Attempting to argue and impart real world physics into a game like D&D is absolutely pointless.

They're not trying to emulate real human health, they trying to emulate genre fiction. And hit points do an OK job in emulating things like John Carter of Mars and the descriptions of some of the combat. But emulating physics? Yeah, there are plenty of game rules that do try to nod to casual understandings of physics and how the world operates. And arguing real world physics isn't pointless at all. There are tons of other aspects of a game setting that depend not only on the game's basic understanding of how the world operates but also our own as players. If they didn't, we'd all be playing Toon where the physics depends more on your lack of Brain and your Chutzpah than on widespread casual understandings of physics.
There may not be a heck of a lot of precision there, but there's an element of physics and reality in many parts of the game.

 

[Shasarak]

There's a reason that bows/guns rather than rocks have tended to be weapons of choice for ambushers over the years.

Given the option why not use rocks, bows/guns and burning oil and if we can get them drunk the night before do that as well.

 

[Sunseeker]

They're not trying to emulate real human health, they trying to emulate genre fiction. And hit points do an OK job in emulating things like John Carter of Mars and the descriptions of some of the combat. But emulating physics? Yeah, there are plenty of game rules that do try to nod to casual understandings of physics and how the world operates. And arguing real world physics isn't pointless at all. There are tons of other aspects of a game setting that depend not only on the game's basic understanding of how the world operates but also our own as players. If they didn't, we'd all be playing Toon where the physics depends more on your lack of Brain and your Chutzpah than on widespread casual understandings of physics.
There may not be a heck of a lot of precision there, but there's an element of physics and reality in many parts of the game.

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying talking about "how things work in reality" isn't a useful discussion when we're talking about a game that emulates fiction.

 

[billd91]

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying talking about "how things work in reality" isn't a useful discussion when we're talking about a game that emulates fiction.

Doesn't the fiction also have nods to reality? Rocks aren't made of balsa in Middle Earth. People don't fall up on Barsoom. The reality of fantasy fiction may always be a bit different from normal reality, but it is derived from it. Discussing how things work in reality can be a very useful discussion when talking about the things players want their characters to do and then operationalize it within the game's rules.

 

[Sunseeker]

Doesn't the fiction also have nods to reality? Rocks aren't made of balsa in Middle Earth. People don't fall up on Barsoom. The reality of fantasy fiction may always be a bit different from normal reality, but it is derived from it. Discussing how things work in reality can be a very useful discussion when talking about the things players want their characters to do and then operationalize it within the game's rules.

These things are more usefully discussed in a role-play context. A large bounder is coming towards you, instead of rolling damage, role out how things are going to happen. If the DM decides failure means you die, you don't need dice for that.

 

[Shasarak]

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying talking about "how things work in reality" isn't a useful discussion when we're talking about a game that emulates fiction.

So in the fiction of Indiana Jones, how does Indy react to a rock rolling down the corridor towards him? Is it the same as how he reacts to a Swordsman threatening him with a sword?

 

[pemerton]

Combat as war tends to be about using what's on hand to the PCs' advantage. Low lying caverns + nearby river = ents divert the river to flood the caverns. Huns invading under a snowy mountain + rockets = Mulan buries the Huns under an avalanche. Horde of Tuigan horsemen invade on plains + dwarves with shovels = tons of small pits dug to break up horde charge. Balrog coming your way + narrow rock bridge + wizard = broken bridge. Icicle covered cavern roof + warhammer = killing Icingdeath by throwing the hammer to dislodge icicles. Rocky cliff wall + cave + wizard's apprentice = Galen uses magic amulet to cause rockfall to imprison Vermithrax.

None of what you describe captures any interesting contrast between 4e and AD&D or 3E. But [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] was pointing to such a contrast, and it was [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s post that I was responding to.

As I've already mentioned, the edition of D&D most likely to replicate Gandalf standing on a bridge and breaking it to make the Balrog fall is 4e. Diverting rivers is likewise very easily resolved; or the use of icicles on a roof; etc.

They're not trying to emulate real human health, they trying to emulate genre fiction. And hit points do an OK job in emulating things like John Carter of Mars and the descriptions of some of the combat.

In what way does the 3E rule for dropping rocks on people emulate genre fiction? Let alone do a better job of that then the 4e rules for the same?

And arguing real world physics isn't pointless at all. There are tons of other aspects of a game setting that depend not only on the game's basic understanding of how the world operates but also our own as players. If they didn't, we'd all be playing Toon where the physics depends more on your lack of Brain and your Chutzpah than on widespread casual understandings of physics.

Again, how does this mark out any interesting difference between AD&D, 3E and/or 4e?

 

[pemerton]

If someone just stabs you, then there's a limit to how much trauma they can cause (especially since you're wearing armor)

Being stabbed with a sword or spear can inflict a fair bit of trauma. And many D&D characters are not wearing armour - eg wizards, sorcerers, monks. Many are not wearing metal armour - eg thieves, assassins, druids, some bards.

(EDIT: I see that [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] covered most of this in a reply upthread of mine. I agree with what shidaku said.)

At least the 3E rules tried to describe how the world works.

The weird thing about the 3E rules you mention is that the difference, in the real word, between having a 100 kg rock or 1000 kg rock land on your head is probably pretty minimal - both will kill you. Whereas in 3E the first does 1d6, which is quite survivable for most characters, while the later does 10d6, which will be fatal for most ordinary people, yet is also oddly survivable by characters of double-digit levels.

That is not an attempt to describe how the world works. It is a largely arbitrary mechanic, which leads to (what you are committed to regarding as) rather absurd outcomes - your argument about rocks vs swords, based on real world considerations, is as sound for a 100 kg rock as a 5 ton rock, yet in 3E the former is not an effective weapon while the latter is.

As a model, it is perfectly reasonable. It makes sense. That's what a good rule looks like.

A normal person is probably dead either way, if they take a direct hit. A dagger can kill a normal person. Normal people are chumps. The difference in lethality between a shortsword and a boulder is not meaningful unless you're talking about someone or something that could reasonably survive one or the other.

I don't understand this.

You are arguing that 4e gets things wrong because it assigns the wrong value/effectiveness to the use of rocks in combat. You seemed to be making that argument by pointing to real-life features of rocks that 4e fails to capture. But now you're saying the 3E model - despite not capturing much (or anything?) that is true of the real world - is nevertheless a good model, simple because of what? Some formal property - that it stipulates a dice per weight per distance rule for rock damage? By that criteria, the rule would be equally excellent if it said "1d6 per lb per 1' of drop" - but obviously that would be a rule even more ridiculous than the 3E one you mention.

A good rule will be one which results in entities being killed by boulders at about the right frequency we would expect for some appropriate set of reality + genre informed expectations.

The reason why weapons are favored over rocks in the real world is because weapons are more accurate and real people are all chumps.

Upthread, when I mentioned that D&D characters are larger-than-life types, you objected that they're not, that they're made of "flesh and bone". But now you're saying that they're not like real people at all - ie people who are made of "flesh and bone".

If you are positing that for D&D characters, having a 100 kg rock or anvil drop on their head from 10' up is a mere bagatelle - that one needs to up it to 1000 or 5000 kg to really get their attention! - then what sort of "flesh and bone" are you talking about? Flesh of steel and bones of reinforced concrete?

 

[pemerton]

if you're using the Combat-as-Sport model, then you do know with significant certainty that the encounter is balanced in such a way that you'll probably win, or else the DM wouldn't have put it there with the expectation that you would face it.

There are two weird things here.

First, any encounter must be one that the PCs can expect to survive, if the GM is doing his/her job properly. (Ie it is generally regarded as bad GMing to declare, out of the blue as it were, "The red dragon lands in front of you 1st level guys and breathes - you're all dead!")

What the mode of survival is, and how it is to be achieved, can vary. Classic D&D has evasion mechanics, and (by dint of them) emphasises fleeing more than does 3E. 4e does not have specific evasion mechanics, but has skill challenges to handle that sort of thing.

Classic D&D also has reaction mechanics, and other versions of D&D have social resolution mechanics, which permit adjudication of conversation as a method of survival.

Now, if the GM has some particular solution in mind for surviving the encounter ("They should flee" or "They should talk") and other options are likely to lead to PC death, I think that's a poorly-designed, rail-road-y encounter; but in any event the skill of play consists in identifying the range of options, choosing between them based on relevant considerations (which might include their likelihood of yielding success) and then successfully implementing one's choice.

I don't really see how the war/sport dichotomy sheds much light on the above.

Second, on your account of CaS, 4e is not an example of the "combat-as-sport" model. The 4e DMG (pp 56-57, 104) says the following:

Step-by-Step Encounters
1. Choose an encounter level. . .

An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party’s level.

A standard encounter is of the party’s level, or one level higher.

A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party’s level.

. . .

A standard encounter should challenge a typical group of characters but not overwhelm them. The characters should prevail if they haven’t depleted their daily resources or had a streak of bad luck. An encounter that’s the same level as the party, or one level higher, falls in this standard range of difficulty.

You can offer your players a greater challenge or an easier time by setting your encounter level two or three levels higher or one or two levels lower than the party’s level. It’s a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure . . .

If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn’t significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters’ survival - or even makes them flee.

The majority of the encounters in an adventure should be moderate difficulty - challenging but not overwhelming, falling right about the party’s level or one higher. Monsters in a standard encounter might range from three levels below the characters to about four levels above them. These encounters should make up the bulk of your adventure.

Easy encounters are two to three levels below the party, and might include monsters as many as four levels lower than the party. These encounters let the characters feel powerful. If you build an encounter using monsters that were a serious threat to the characters six or seven levels ago, you’ll remind them of how much they’ve grown in power and capabilities since the last time they fought those monsters. You might include an easy encounter about once per character level - don’t overdo it.

Hard encounters are two to three levels above the party, and can include monsters that are five to seven levels above the characters. These encounters really test the characters’ resources, and might force them to take an extended rest at the end. They also bring a greater feeling of accomplishment, though, so make sure to include about one such encounter per character level. However, be careful of using high level soldiers and brutes in these encounters. Soldier monsters get really hard to hit when they’re five levels above the party, and brutes can do too much damage at that level.​

That's advice about pacing and managing player expectations. Even if followed, it doesn't generate significant certainty that you'll probably win, except in the anodyne sense that I mentioned above, namely, that the GM is not just going to declare that a red dragon breathes on you or that an orc horde turns up and massacres the party. And nothing about the game makes it remotely difficult to ignore the advice, and include a larger proportion of what the DMG calls "hard" encounters - I know that, because I've done it throughout my 4e campaign. (I think the DMG overestimates the interest that what it calls "standard" encounters possesses for a group of experienced RPGers/wargamers.)

 

[pemerton]

So in the fiction of Indiana Jones, how does Indy react to a rock rolling down the corridor towards him? Is it the same as how he reacts to a Swordsman threatening him with a sword?

That's because he thinks he can kill the swordsman. If he had a stick of dynamite ready to hand, no doubt he would blow up the boulder.