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

[Tovec]

Which is also what you expect from a /game/.

Which D&D is. A 'roleplaying' game, but still a game.


A balanced game can put just exactly as much challenge before the party as the DM sees fit.

Want a more challenging scenario, dial it up.

I'll admit, a bad game is a challenge to run, though, if that's what you're getting at...

I'm sure others have said what I'm going to say, and indeed more eloquently. I just wanted to give a quick reply before I went to sleep.

You said "I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they think a game should be less like an actual sport, and more like an actual war." and I gave an answer. Please do not ignore the bulk of the answer because you have a personal point to make.

My reply had nothing to do with the back and forth about balance you seem to be having with others on this thread. It had to do with the crux of the question you put forth. You ask "why should a game be less a sport and more a war" and I reply..

Because sports are easy, because sports are meant to be fair.

I reply..

Because wars are meant to be hard, because wars are meant to mean something.

My fault, I guess, was saying "yes it is a game" when I mean to say that just because it is a game does not mean it should be simple. It does not mean it should be limited to the good guys win, always. It does not mean that it should be a kids TV cartoon where the wily rabbit always gets the better of the hunter with the shotgun. I severely think that the guy with the overwhelming odds should have the upper-hand, every time. I think that the good guy(s) should be killed, every time, unless they come up with a way to defeat big bad. It should be hard, it should not be handed to them on a silver platter just because they are the good guys and ought to win.

They are adventurers living a hard lifestyle, they get paid the big bucks not only because they are strong and courageous but because they have the knack for defeating the enemy where all others have failed. Because they risk their lives, and have a chance of not returning to their homes at the end of an adventure. They shouldn't simply win because they tried. They should win because they prepared. That is the point I was trying to make, the point which you glossed over in favour of the "it is a game" comment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You said "I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they think a game should be less like an actual sport, and more like an actual war." and I gave an answer:

Because sports are easy, because sports are meant to be fair.

I reply..

Because wars are meant to be hard, because wars are meant to mean something.

Wars are meant to destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight. Sports are not /easy/, some of them are torturously hard. People die 'playing' sports.

D&D is just a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not something you should be considering taking performance-enhancing drugs to win (a sport), and it's certainly not something you should be considering firebombing civilian populations to win (a war).

So, no, I don't really quite feel you answered my question.

All you said was you wanted a challenging game. A challenging game /should/ still have rules and those rules should still be fair. Whether you, as a GM, want to present players with a measured challenge they're likely to overcome (because thats what your story demands), or an overwhleming challenge they'll have to bring their 'A Game' to for a 50/50 shot at survival, you can do it with a balanced game, and anything in-between, as well.


...


In case you missed it, the OPs take-away was that 3.5 was a 'combat as war' game, and 4e a 'combat as sport' game. That is, 4e presents no challenge, while 3.5 does.

This is patently false. The difference between 3.5 and 4e is that the former is poorly balanced. That does mean that you can go all 'combat as war' with it - against your players, against your DM, pvp, whatever - in that the rules aren't up to the task of making you 'play fair.' That's not really 'war,' it's more like a sport without referees, with doping, and mob involvement. It's a /bad/ sport that plays out like a war.

That doesn't mean you can't love it. I quite enjoyed it for most of it's life, there's a long list of games I'd play 3.5 in preference to - some of them, like GURPS, arguably quite superior to it. It doesn't mean you have to rationalize or justify enjoying it by making up reasons it's flaws are features.

Which is all this thread is. Rationalizing a preference for a game that isn't quite as technically good as its successor.

If 5e beats the odds and turns out better than 4e, you'll see similar threads defending the preference for it, just as unecessarily.

 

[Tovec]

Wars are meant to destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight. Sports are not /easy/, some of them are torturously hard. People die 'playing' sports. D&D is just a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not something you should be considering taking performance-enhancing drugs to win (a sport), and it's certainly not something you should be considering firebombing civilian populations to win (a war).



All you said was you wanted a challenging game. A challenging game /should/ still have rules and those rules should be fair. A sufficiently gifted DM can make almost any RPG challenging. A DM doesn't have to be nearly as exemplary to get the challenge right in a well-balanced game, because the game at least functions as indicated.

Much better reply. Thank you.

First, I said sports and war in terms of CAW and CAS - I think that's what you people have used right? Just sounds silly to me.

Second, in my original post I said sports as in recreational (non-professional) for a reason. I did not want the connotation of performance enhancing, cheating, massive betting and all the other rather extreme tendencies which go along with professional sports. I didn't say that again in my second post because I was paraphrasing myself and didn't think I needed to restate everything I had already said.

Third, I do not equate DnD to real war, that would be silly. I have repetatively said that the method of combat as war is, to me, a preferable method. It insitutes a way the rules are made and what their goal should be. You wanted to know why I don't want a sport, why I don't want a casual game? To me that is a board game which I can sit down and play with my family during holidays. DnD to me has always been something I sit down and play week after week and for that I want more complexity and higher stakes, not just a sport-like atmosphere where the good guys always win.

Fourth, yes I do want challenging. I will agree that challenging can be disjoint from how balanced the system or how fair the DM is. I do however see a direct relation between the mindset and the ruleset employed by WotC in 4e. That view is that "it is just a game" therefore build a balanced game and everything will work itself out. That is patently false and what turned many people off the system as a whole.
Many take this one step further, pointing out that the rules in the CAS model are meant to deal damage in a variety of flavours. Whereas the rules in a CAW model are meant to provide a framework to do much more.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have repetatively said that the method of combat as war is, to me, a preferable method. It insitutes a way the rules are made and what their goal should be.

So, why do you think the 'CAW' preference shapes the rule system?

A balanced system is not the same thing as a balanced encounter. Why would class balance, for instance, get in the way of running combats that had that 'war' feel to them? Why would a system for balancing encounters get in the way - wouldn't it just make the process of constructing extremely challenging (imbalanced) encounters more consistent?

Fourth, yes I do want challenging. I will agree that challenging can be disjoint from how balanced the system or how fair the DM is. I do however see a direct relation between the mindset and the ruleset employed by WotC in 4e. That view is that "it is just a game" therefore build a balanced game and everything will work itself out. That is patently false and what turned many people off the system as a whole.

What's patently false? That D&D is a game? That a game should at least try to be balanced?

This really is sounding like rationalizing a preference, again.

Many take this one step further, pointing out that the rules in the CAS model are meant to deal damage in a variety of flavours. Whereas the rules in a CAW model are meant to provide a framework to do much more.

I /really/ don't see that, at all. I think what you're getting at is that 4e has rules - including things like damage types, conditions, and keywords that are used consistently, even though there can be any number of exceptions to add in yet more possibilities. That makes the rules fairly precise and easy to adjudicate, it doesn't leave a lot of 'wiggle' room for, well, 'cheating.' (I wish I could think of a better word to express that than 'cheating' - getting around the social contract of the rules somehow. Oh: Meta-gaming?)

 

[Savage Wombat]

There's nothing wrong with the system being balanced, but it shouldn't be balanced solely towards combat. For example, my understanding is that 4E doesn't allow a PC to have a long-duration flight spell, because having one PC flying through the whole combat is unbalancing. But it's a vital component of some CaW strategies.

So a 4E system supporting CaW would need to provide PCs with the means for flight outside of combat, if not inside of combat.

Just one example.

 

[Daztur]

Where is that link in this thread? Thanks.

I don't think it's linked anywhere in this thread, but Tony mentioned the idea behind it: Ivory Tower Game Design

The idea is rather dumb.

In reality, it's a lot easier to prep a situation than it is to prep a plot.

Right. Also locations can take a while to prep but they can be re-used over and over while plots can't (like us taking 12-odd short game sessions to get through a 36-page module).

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's nothing wrong with the system being balanced, but it shouldn't be balanced solely towards combat. For example, my understanding is that 4E doesn't allow a PC to have a long-duration flight spell, because having one PC flying through the whole combat is unbalancing.

Flight is a higher-level ability in 4e (except for the pixie, which has an altitude limit). There's a quite long durration 'overland flight.' But that's not /just/ to balance combat. It's to balance out-of-combat, as well.

But it's a vital component of some CaW strategies.

:shrug: If CaW is so all-fired challenge-seeking, any strategy with a 'vital' component can't be a very good one.

So a 4E system supporting CaW would need to provide PCs with the means for flight outside of combat, if not inside of combat.

Just one example.

4e has flight both in-combat and out. Next.

 

[The Shaman]

I want to duel the Cardinal's Guards in a convent courtyard.

And I want to push a bastion wall over on a sortie of Huguenots.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they think a game should be less like an actual sport, and more like an actual war.

D&D is just a game. It's supposed to be fun.

Playing a CAW-style game is more fun for certain people. That's why some people prefer it. As always, play what you like

Since people have been talking a bit about the possibility of reconciling what players with a strong combat-as-war preference like and what players with a strong combat-as-sport preference like but not coming to too many conclusions, here's a thought. Maybe all of the out-of-combat, resource-tracking, strategic-planning stuff that combat-as-war players like, instead of setting the difficulty of the combat you get into, sets the stakes? If you plan and manage resources well, maybe you successfully raise a rebel army against the evil emperor, bust into his throne room and end up in a balanced fight against him and a handful of his elite guards while your allies hold off the rest of his forces outside. If you plan and manage resources badly, the rebellion collapses and the balanced fights you end up getting into are instead against the evil emperor's patrols as they try to hunt you down and capture you: your main goal at that point is just to get out of the emperor's lands alive, and you're going to have to really shine in those combats to ever get a shot at taking the emperor down.

... I'd like to hear what players with a combat-as-war preference think.

This is pretty much the sweet spot for me (as someone who probably prefers the CAW mindset, but values CAS). I love the feel of "you guys are outmatched, what do you do?" and the players maneuvering themselves into a good position, but not a clear win from the get-go (most of the time).

Now, I definitely have seen "you lose" situations, and "you win" situations, based purely around good or bad plans in a CAW style. But the sweet spot? The one that might get aimed for in a more hands-on approach? That's "you maneuvered yourself into this fight, and it should be interesting to see how it unfolds!"

It's definitely more hands-on, though. It wouldn't exactly fit my group the majority of the time. It might in certain campaigns though, and I think it definitely would for most groups. As much as I've defended the mindset of "players winning or losing based purely on CAW" in the past (though not in those terms), I am strongly of the opinion that I (and possibly S'mon, The Shaman, etc.) am in the minority. Most groups seem more hands-on.

I think it would be interesting to give advice for things to play out this way for a certain play style. I think a lot of people could really, really enjoy it. I wouldn't want to see it hard-coded into the games' rules, but it makes for really good advice. So, I approve of your proposal on that level. As always, play what you like

 

[Hassassin]

That's the potential conflict between Simulationism (Right to Dream) and Gamism (Step on Up) in a nutshell. And why I, and I think LostSoul, associate 4e-style CAS with Simulationism rather than Gamism.

I think G/S is fairly orthogonal to CAW/S. You can run "fair fights" in either G or S style, similarly CAW style campaigns can be in either style depending at least on objectives.

Trying to analyze the very coherent OP by bringing in GSN or the even more confusing "Right to Dream" -type characterizations will just get us into semantic arguments.