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

[Lanefan]

As a quick point of clarification, I will state that I have, many times, read people claiming that the problem with the switch from 1e to 2e was the removal of focus on "the dungeon" and the shift to focus on "story-telling". Usually with implied retching noises.

2e had many problems, this was one. Not because it tried to focus on story, but because it went somewhat overboard on it: "story" completely took over from most other considerations - which for some was great but for many was not.

Lan-"balance in 4e shares a similar fate"-efan

 

[Savage Wombat]

2e had many problems, this was one. Not because it tried to focus on story, but because it went somewhat overboard on it: "story" completely took over from most other considerations - which for some was great but for many was not.

Lan-"balance in 4e shares a similar fate"-efan

That sort of supports my point, in a way - to suggest that a heavy emphasis on story is a problem implies that it somehow limits your ability to enjoy the game the way you want to play it.

 

[billd91]

That sort of supports my point, in a way - to suggest that a heavy emphasis on story is a problem implies that it somehow limits your ability to enjoy the game the way you want to play it.

That certainly applied to many of the modules published (particularly Ravenloft ones), but that doesn't have much to do with CaS vs CaW.

 

[Lanefan]

That sort of supports my point, in a way - to suggest that a heavy emphasis on story is a problem implies that it somehow limits your ability to enjoy the game the way you want to play it.

I'll still play the game I want to; but over-focus on story makes much of the published material somewhat less useful as written. Any time I've ever tried running a 2e module, for example, I find I have to spend more time than I'd like chopping off all the built-in story to get to the meat of the thing, which I'll then build my own story around.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Detailed settings and 'storytelling' were big in the 90s (well, by RPG standards, not like CCGs big), 2e just followed that trend.

It also just... collapsed under the weight of it's own suplements, really. There was just too much 2e to play 2e, however accustomed you might have been to it's late-70s-style system. :shrug:

 

[enigma5915]

While I think DMs that can be completely impartial are awesome I dont think it really works in practice.
QUOTE]

Well, in my experience (practice) roughly 75% of all games I have played in or ran combined have been with completely impartial DMing in the 30 years I have played D&D. Maybe I’m lucky…but I doubt it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

This is it exactly. It's always bothered me that I have a list of spells, combat maneuvers, feats, or whatever on my character sheet that I spent actual resources that required me to give up something to get(could have taken a different feat, a different spell, etc) that were constantly being equaled or exceeded by "creative play".

Why take a Fireball spell that does 10d6 points of damage to an enemy with 100 HP when the Rogue in the group can rig a trap that causes instant death to the same enemy(with no monetary cost since he improvised it with nearby items) when he walks through a door?

It always seemed like there was a baseline for combat effectiveness(hitpoints and damage) and that baseline could be bypassed entirely by things that weren't on the character sheet. It seemed to trivialize the mechanics of the game until the things written in the rules and on the character sheet were insignificant and not really part of the game.

 

[Hassassin]

As a quick point of clarification, I will state that I have, many times, read people claiming that the problem with the switch from 1e to 2e was the removal of focus on "the dungeon" and the shift to focus on "story-telling". Usually with implied retching noises.

That'a because "storytelling" suggests railroading to them. And really, many of the published adventures you find from that time period *were* very railroaded. Unlike traditional dungeon modules, of course.

The difference between CAW and CAS isn't storytelling vs. something else. Both can support story lines, but CAS can work with railroads and event tree plots, whereas CAW pretty much requires the DM to prep situations and let the events unfold as they may.

That doesn't mean CAS = railroading, don't get me wrong. It just means you *can* run a railroaded adventure very enjoyably in CAS style, if the players like that. OTOH, railroading is either impossible in CAW style or makes the players feel very limited.

 

[billd91]

This is it exactly. It's always bothered me that I have a list of spells, combat maneuvers, feats, or whatever on my character sheet that I spent actual resources that required me to give up something to get(could have taken a different feat, a different spell, etc) that were constantly being equaled or exceeded by "creative play".

Why take a Fireball spell that does 10d6 points of damage to an enemy with 100 HP when the Rogue in the group can rig a trap that causes instant death to the same enemy(with no monetary cost since he improvised it with nearby items) when he walks through a door?

It always seemed like there was a baseline for combat effectiveness(hitpoints and damage) and that baseline could be bypassed entirely by things that weren't on the character sheet. It seemed to trivialize the mechanics of the game until the things written in the rules and on the character sheet were insignificant and not really part of the game.

For me, this is one of the greatest things about RPGs - the ability to step away from the limitations of rules enumerating what the PCs can do and having them do stuff anyway because it makes sense. 4e's best contribution to D&D is probably page 42, which essentially endorses doing this sort of thing (although with some quirks to the design that could use fixing). Though, interestingly enough, a rogue setting a trap using those rules can do more damage than a wizard's fireball.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to assume you're familiar with the idea of dissociated mechanics. This is what he's talking about.

I think almost everyone is. However I and many others think that so-called 'disassociated mechanics' are a steaming pile of ** ** moderate your language please ** made up by someone as an excuse for a prejudice rather than an explanation.

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.

You have that almost precisely backwards. What that subset of encounters requires is good information. It is dead easy to tell a group of PCs that three dozen ogres, one with a pet dragon are approaching their settlement in 4e. That's what I'm doing now. It's Combat as War with the PCs sneak attacking and using hit-and-fade tactics, traps, stakes in the riverbed. Last fight was a hit and run on a column of ogres - with covering fire from the far side of the riverbank. They killed one ogre before he had a chance to act, and the second in the first round. (More turned up).

Combat as war is trivial in a combat as sport system. Multiply the size of the enemy by an order of magnitude and let the PCs know the rewards for failure are ... bad. You might not have all the props for combat-as-war that 3e PCs leant on. But those are simply props.

On the other hand combat as sport is near impossible in a combat as war system. Combat as sport requires a decent indication of outcomes in advance. And a certain resistance to PC death. If one errant critical hit can kill a PC then they will treat it as war because they don't want to take that risk. So you need to neuter the chance of the bad guys getting a critical hit. And need a clear idea of the outcome.

Shorter me: It's easy to turn combat-as-sport into combat-as-war. Give the bad guys bigger hammers. The ideas then flow from avoiding those hammers. Turning combat-as-war into combat-as-sport requires replacing the enemy swords with LARP weapons - which turns the whole thing into a farce. (Or an explicit arena match).

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.

This.

It never occurred to me to have magic Wal-Marts, where you can buy an item you wanted. I did the magic item inventory for the store I created by using random magic item rolls, a certain number from each table.

I think you're misunderstand that CaW means Min-Maxing and Build Optimization. We've never been interested in that.

Why the hell haven't your characters been interested in equipment optimisation - y'know, things to keep them alive? You're sounding like a CaS group who just happens to play rough sports.

Works like a spell = works like a spell.

Yes - but we disagree strongly on what works like a spell. To me what works like a spell is what the characters would see as a spell - the mechanical implementation is barely relevant.