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

[Mutak]

It seems like we are having a fundamental miscommunication. Talking about the 4e rules that define spells and power sources is irrelevant to whether or not using a power feels like casting a spell to someone who is not working solely inside the framework of 4e.

It also appears to be entirely off-topic, so unless there's a bigger point to be made about CaS vs. CaW in here, i suggest we let it go.

 

[dkyle]

Very good essay, and nails down a lot of the differences in approach I hadn't quite identified.

When it comes to D&D, I'm very much about CaS. Always have been, and I think that's why I ultimately found D&D very disappointing until 4E. I definitely come from a board gaming background, first, and when I first got into D&D, I expected board-game-quality tactical combats, strung together with story and persistent characters. When those fun combats I wanted kept getting sidelined by the (to me, usually groan-inducing) "creative" solutions, I got frustrated.

But I don't think it's because I dislike CaW. Quite the contrary, I've had plenty of fun with RPGs that were much more about CaW than CaS. They just weren't D&D.

So what's wrong with CaW in D&D? I think it boils down to the fact that CaW is really about leveraging non-combat mechanics, to trivialize the combat mechanics. And D&D has traditionally had a great deal of mechanical focus on combat mechanics, with relatively little focus on non-combat mechanics. And what non-combat mechanics there were, were generally quite bad, and excessively reliant on arbitrary DCs, and an overly simplistic pass-fail model, with an unnatural-feeling random distribution (a flat d20, vs bell-curves). Not to mention the huge disparity of non-combat capabilities of spell-casters compared to everyone else.

And so, CaW means that the bulk of what actually matters to the success or failure of the adventure, and the story-line of the game, relies on spotty rules that largely depend on how willing the DM is to go along with what you want to do. And meanwhile, all those complicated combat rules, and those well-engineered character building rules, sit there being useless. And, once a CaW mindset takes hold, a CaS-oriented player is left out, because the mere occurrence of a fair fight ends up feeling like a failure to the CaW-players, so they fight having one tooth-and-nail (and want it over as soon as possible), while CaS player feels torn because actual participation in the game means perpetuating the CaW-style.

On the other hand, games where I've enjoyed CaW, I knew what I was getting into, and there were more robust rules for handling non-combat. I knew not to expect CaS, because the combat rules were minimal. And I could enjoy the non-combat for what it was because there were actual mechanics involved, that didn't end up feeling like DM fiat.

Because, ultimately, I don't think I'm really a "CaS" player, as opposed to a CaW player. I'm a "mechanics" player. I value game mechanics very highly, and in an RPG, they are the physics of the world to me. Good mechanics do more to make the game real to me than anything else. And the problem with CaW is its tendency to go outside the mechanics, in ways the trivialize the actual mechanics, and elevates convincing the DM above actually playing your character within his world. And that, ultimately, does more to undermine my immersion in the game than anything else. Even if there's magic, I expect some amount of "Physics" to them (just not real-world physics). And I'm not talking simulation, here. I actually prefer narrative-style rules for non-combat.

So I think the answer is, if CaW is supposed to be a supported approach for 5E, it needs to have robust non-combat rules. The problem is that the only non-combat rules I've actually been sold on have been strongly narrative or gamist, which goes directly against the old-school simulationist feel. The problem with simulationism is that it inevitably can't handle every situation (and CaW players are strongly incentivized to seek situations outside the rules, because convincing the DM is their greatest weapon), and they tend to provide rather limited tools to cover situations outside their precise scope. But because it's a "simulation", the DM can't (easily) just say "here are the mechanics, so whatever you want to do has to fit them", because the mechanics are so specific.

I think my dream D&D would be one that has support for both CaS and CaW, with well defined mechanics for both. Essentially, there would be a codified way of stating out and rating advantages the PCs could gain using the non-combat rules. With a slight edge, maybe they allow for better initiative, or a favorable "ambush" position. But maybe, at a certain point, the edge is large enough that it's not really about succeeding or dying, it's about how much resources you use to win. And at that point, perhaps it's safe to back out of full tactical, CaS-style combat, and use a broader, quicker, more narrative approach.

Character abilities might get a one or two line summary that governs how they work in that narrative combat system, and players could decide what daily and consumable resources they're willing to consume (including whatever advantages they earned prior to the combat) to produce a relatively-risk free victory. And if things go badly for them, maybe at that point the game shifts into the nitty-gritty combat system.

The end goal would be to allow both approaches to shine at different times. Sometimes, you can use superior strategy to avoid a fair fight. But sometimes, you just can't.

That brings me to those videos: the reason the Indiana Jones scene is so great is because it subverts expectations. The problem is, it seems like CaW ends up being all that, all the time. If Indiana Jones was constantly going around shooting swordsmen, that gets old quick. On the other hand, epic sword battles (like the Princess Bride) don't have that same novelty factor.

 

[herrozerro]

[MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION] I think you put into words perfectly how I feel about it.

In retrospect i dont dislike CaW, I also have games I play that have those aspects and I enjoy them. But as you put it, putting it into D&D without a much better non combat aspect is circumventing a great system with a poor system.

 

[Dragonblade]

[MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION]

Brilliant post and great analysis.

I'm hoping that 5e is robust enough to support both playstyles.

 

[JonWake]

I think it can if the modules are robust enough. For example, I assume that HPs will increase with level. This has ever been an issue with CaW players-- unless there was a concurrent module that increased weapon damage with your attack bonus.
So the damage to HP balance remains from 1st level to 20th, but if you attack a lower level critter, you flatten them. No need for minions.

OKay, so I don't think that has any to do with CaW, but I like the idea anyway.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Aparently, if done often enough, stridently enough, viciously enough, and combined with a veritable boycott, it can kill a 3-year-old edition of D&D for the first time in the history of the game.

Editions of the game that survived three years or less include:

OD&D (1974-1977)
Holmes (1977-1981)
Moldvay (1981-1983)

You could arguably toss 3.0 onto that pot, too, since it was completely replaced by 3.5 and its supplements taken out of print due to a lack of compatibility.

So, no, not "the first time in history". Particularly since 5E hasn't even arrived yet and almost certainly won't arrive before 4E's fifth birthday.

Balanced games, like 4e, are more style neutral.

That's possibly true for certain types of balanced games.

But for games that achieve balance the way 4E achieves balance (by explicitly and deliberately narrowing the range of play and the flexibility of character creation)? No. That's actually the exact opposite of reality.

The Princess Bride:

• Inigo Montoya versus the Man in Black: Combat as Sport.
• Inigo Montoya, Fezzik, and the Man in Black preparing to rescue Princess Buttercup: Combat as War.

It's different at different times.

And this sums up why 4E isn't more style neutral: A "combat as war" system inherently allows you to also set up balanced encounters which allow for "combat as sport" play (since these are a subset of encounters within the broad range inherently supported by the "combat as war" system). But a "combat as sport" system is specifically narrowed in order to enforce the "combat as sport" style of play; which means that "combat as war" can't apply.

It seems obvious to me that you could and should try to design your system so that a GM who always follows the guidelines for creating balanced encounters will end up with a CaS game and then provide lots of additional advice and options that support CaW play. The most basic of which would be "You don't have to follow the guidelines for creating balanced encounters."

This, however, will only work insofar as the players are willing to accept CaS play. If they aren't -- and the system doesn't try to prohibit you from improving your odds through careful preparation -- then your CaS-Approved Encounters will be turned into cakewalks due to the preparation of your CaW players.

This is probably the worst combination, actually: A DM aiming for CaS while the players are playing in the mode of CaW. Since the DM isn't providing a full range of potential encounters, the players will never actually be challenged. Everything ends up landing well below their tolerance levels.

(It gets worse if the DM then tries to ramp up the difficulty of all his encounters in order to "make them challenging": Now instead of a proper mix of encounters, the PCs are facing "storm the castle and rescue Princess Buttercup" every single time.)

Balance is not bad. Slavish, fetishistic worship of balance at the expense of creativity and spontaneity is.

Reminds me of this article

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that FATE does a pretty good job of modeling novel-style heroism (the hero defies the odds but generally wins anyway due to the players having partial narrative control).

I haven't played it yet, but I do have Spirit of the Century, and I remember FUDGE. FATE seems to be very much into modeling story (or 'narrativist') over modeling world (or 'simulationist') which is nice, though I see merit in both aproaches - from the exercise of creating inter-connected 'novels' for the PCs as part of character creation, to the Aspects, to the sort of 'plot coupon' mechanics.

For example, my character got a FATE point from my GM for not backing down when faced with a powerful NPC because of my “My Father Told Me to Duel Often” and then I spent that FATE point to help win the fight.

lol

D&D wasn't too firmly in either the 'story' or 'world' camp until 3e, when it got more consistent in it's world-modeling tendencies, with PCs, NPC and monsters using very nearly the same rules for character creation, for instance. 4e got more narrativist, with things like surges, dailies, and action points (all useable like 'plot coupons' to a small, specialized degree). Neither to as great a degree as games that really spcialize one way or the other, but each got some good (and not so good) results out of the subtle shift in emphasis.

An important asside about 'simulation.' Simulation, realism, and verisimilitude get thrown around a lot. 3.5 wasn't, I think, exactly any of those things, but it had qualities of them. What it really seemed like to me was a game in a simulationist mode that wasn't trying to simulate anything, it just had the internal consistency of a simulationist system, but rather than trying to simulate a world, it implied a world. There was never a world/system diconnect, because the world /was/ the system. For instance, in 3.5, craft let you make an item at 1/3rd cost, and you could sell items for half cost - so it was 'realistically' possible to live as a crafter. The existance of the expert class and the craft skill - not the need of a world to have people who make stuff as a backdrop for the heroes' story - fills the world with crafters. It's a subtle but profound characteristic of some games.

Some games, like Battletech, describe a world in rich detail, and model it with mechanics that often fail to model the world described. 3e vaguely described a world, and let the mechanics of the system imply the rich detail of that world as a consequence of how they worked. Of the two, I certainly prefer 3e. Battletech was just a jarring waste of column inches. 3e gave you one sort of fantasy world/genre that it did very faithfully - itself. But, to run a different world than the one implied by the rules, you needed to change the rules - great fun, actually, if you're up to the challenge.

4e is not often considered realistic or simulationist, but it does try to simulate something: an heroic fantasy story. The 4e system does not imply a world, but a genre. Within that genre, you can concieve of a variety of charaters, worlds and stories and run them with little need to mod the system. If, OTOH, you wanted to run a different genre - specifically, not an heroic one, you could take just martial classes and run a magickless game - you'd have to overhaul them.


As a DM, I do have a certain weakness for the system-implying-world aproach. It's perfect for tinkering and customizing to create a campaign where rule- and power- consicous players will create the kinds of characters you're going for, seek the kinds of challenges you're going for, and overcome them with the kind of solutions you're going for. They're very channelizing, rather than rail-roading. You don't need a plot with rails, because there's one best path through the decicision tree, and skillful players will find it. It's a lot of fun to tinker with such a system, or to build characters for it (especially optimizaton exercises). It can, at times, be a little less fun to actually play, though, because the most important decisions and the actual victories often happen before you sit down and roll dice.

Difficulty has nothing to do with either style.

The implication certainly seemed to be that CaW = realy hard challenges for real gamers, and CaS = non-challenges for pansies. There's been a lot of arrogance and talking-down going on in this thread - and not all by me, either. :hmph:

Yup, there’s a lot of indie games I love (especially FATE) that are built on concepts that didn’t exist until relatively recently, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t old games that blow just about every new game out of the water at the particular things that they focus on.

That's true of some games that 'capstoned' the style they were working in, I'm sure. The ultimate test of a game's quality is not applesranges comparisons with very different games, but internal. It the game consistent? Can you play it as-is without problems? Over it's full scope? (and how wide is it's scope?) Does it present myriad viable choices, or lack choice? or do 'obvious best' choices crowd out most others, or 'trap' choices make it treacherous for the uninitiatied?

As you reach back to the earliest days of the hobby, no game met all, or even many, of those criteria. The best might have hit one or two.


But, certainly you can make any game 'best in class' if you just define it into a class by itself.

What I’m talking about is that, for example, when I played a 3ed campaign in which CLW wands were readily available any fight that didn’t have a chance of killing us all was boring since we could just heal up right afterwards. In D&D I don’t want every fight to be dancing on the line of a TPK in order to be fun and the last few games of 3ed that I played were exactly that. I’ve got a lot of love for 3ed, but damn does it require some house ruling to be fun.

Sounds like not all our experiences are that different...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Editions of the game that survived three years or less include:

OD&D (1974-1977)

Actually remained in print well into the 80s.

Holmes (1977-1981)
Moldvay (1981-1983)

Little more than the covers changed, BECMI was effectively one ed that went through 1992.

You could arguably toss 3.0 onto that pot, too, since it was completely replaced by 3.5 and its supplements taken out of print due to a lack of compatibility.

3.0 suplements were explicitly useable with 3.5, and even official for 3.5 until re-done for it. A number of 3.0 books thus remained offical through the end of 3.5 since they were never re-done.

And, if we're counting half-eds, 4e went barely 2 years, thanks to Essentials.

But for games that achieve balance the way 4E achieves balance (by explicitly and deliberately narrowing the range of play and the flexibility of character creation)?

The flexibility of character creation is a matter of viable choices. A game like 3.5 or Hero, in theory, gives you infinite flexibiilty in character creation, but only a very small sub-set of those possible characters are actually viable, it takes a lot of system mastery to tease them out, and in the end, they can be less than a better-balanced game with fewer trap choices (like 4e).

The range of play in which 3.5 was functional was levels 1-10, with many-encounter days and constant hammering of caster restrictions. The range of play for 4e was levels 1-30, with encounters/day making no real difference to class balance. 4e expanded the range of play. For that matter - back on the original topic - it covers both CaW and CaS, since you can have any level of challenge you want, while 3.5's innate imbalance pushes it towards CaW, with CaS being /very/ tricky, probably possibly only in single-digit levels, if that.

And this sums up why 4E isn't more style neutral

It is, becaue it's balance, not a 'CaS' system, but a balanced system.

A "combat as war" system inherently allows you to also set up balanced encounters which allow for "combat as sport" play (since these are a subset of encounters within the broad range inherently supported by the "combat as war" system). But a "combat as sport" system is specifically narrowed in order to enforce the "combat as sport" style of play; which means that "combat as war" can't apply.

A game that pushes players towards a style is not balanced, yes.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>


The implication certainly seemed to be that CaW = realy hard challenges for real gamers, and CaS = non-challenges for pansies. There's been a lot of arrogance and talking-down going on in this thread - and not all by me, either. :hmph:

I have a lot of difficulty with CaS. I'm a great lateral thinker; I can find weak spots and exploitable weaknesses relatively easily. I suck at straight up tactical play -- especially the positional play demanded by 4e. It's not that CaW is inherently more difficult than CaS: the skill sets, talents, and interests are very different. One interests me as a player; the other does not.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Aha!

Now I understand why many old-school grognards hate "story-telling" adventures.

It's because the CaW strategies work best on a static or reactionary force. Such as a dungeon, or an approaching army. A situation where the PCs are the ones determining when an engagement occurs.

In a story-focused adventure, where you have actions occuring on a villain's timetable, the encounters tend more towards the "fight me now or lose the game" type (not to mention the famous "the module assumes you do this" type) and don't allow for strategies such as regrouping, or coming back with better weapons and more exp.

CaW players benefit from dungeons, not event sequences. (I was going to say time pressure, and then thought that they probably think of time pressure as a challenge, not a frustration.) CaS players are OK with DM-driven plots, and even railroads, because they don't risk a single encounter overwhelming them.