Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5811120" data-attributes="member: 70707"><p>Very good essay, and nails down a lot of the differences in approach I hadn't quite identified.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <em>And</em>, 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>real</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5811120, member: 70707"] 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. [i]And[/i], 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 [i]real[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top