D&D 5E [Very Long Indeed] Reconciling Combat as War and Combat as Sports in 5ed

[pemerton]

response to pemerten:

"These posts give one illustration of how encounters can be balanced yet tactically meaningful within PC death being on the line to any significant extent: the abilities of the participants in a fight - both antagonists and protagonists - can be configured so that death is not a serious threat provided that the players play their PCs with mechanical and tactical cleverness."

But those examples were predicated on making the PCs use up their resources and how many resources get used in previous fights can throw off the balance of later fights.

I don't think so. The two posts I quoted talked about PC death being a reality without having to be likely, and about uncertainty, as sources of interest in a fight. Both these things can be achieved without resource consumption being a significant issue.

I'm not sure how much 4e you've played. In my experience with it, it has a very high tolerance level for variations in resources relative to encounters: the players will adopt different tactics depending on how many dailies and action points they have left, and the encounter will therefore play out differently, but it's quite hard to "throw off the balance". The real action is in making decisions about how to deploy whatever resources the party has available, and this can be an interesting challenge even if the proper deployment of those resources is likely to guarantee victory. (And if the party is low on resources, the players will typically think harder about how to use what they've got - which increases the tension and the intensity, but needn't thereby throw of the balance.)

Another example comes from Rolemaster. In Rolemaster, melee combatants can get access to abilities called Adrenal Moves, which are a borderline between encounter and at will powers - when you roll to use an Adrenal Move, if successful you get a self-buff, if you fail a mild penalty. Succeed or fail, you can try again - but sustaining success faces an increasing difficulty, plus an increased penalty once you come out or fail. This mechanic generates an interesting tension in combat - "Should I use my Adrenal Move this round?" or "If I come out now I'll face a -40 penalty, but if I try and sustain I've only got a 50% chance of success and if I fail will face a -60 penalty - what should I do?"

This is not a mechanism that involves attrition at all, but it can make combat interesting without the stakes having to be so high that "the balance has been thrown off". It forces choices about how to act on a round-by-round basis, ensuring interest and tension. (It's also swingier than what would suit D&D, I think, but that's a general property of Rolemaster.)

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not sure how much 4e you've played. In my experience with it, it has a very high tolerance level for variations in resources relative to encounters: the players will adopt different tactics depending on how many dailies and action points they have left, and the encounter will therefore play out differently, but it's quite hard to "throw off the balance". The real action is in making decisions about how to deploy whatever resources the party has available, and this can be an interesting challenge even if the proper deployment of those resources is likely to guarantee victory. (And if the party is low on resources, the players will typically think harder about how to use what they've got - which increases the tension and the intensity, but needn't thereby throw of the balance.)

This is very much what I've been trying to say earlier in the thread: 4e was designed so that regardless of the resources you have going into an encounter, the chance of coming out alive isn't significantly different. That limit on attrition makes easy encounters (whether because you are stronger or because you manufacture an advantage) all but meaningless - especially early in the day.

4e still has attrition, but until someone is out of surges it has little effect on survival or chances of overcoming encounters. There's more of a cliff from which you eventually fall off than the downward sloping hill of earlier editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

However CAS systems generally have more rules, and express them more precisely (i.e. jargon), which makes system knowledge and content prep more difficult pound for pound.

I disagree strongly on both points.

First, Jargon makes system mastery easier because you don't need to define the term each time you use it. 4e is IMO easier to master than AD&D for this reason.

Second, CAW systems need, of necessity, to be rules heavy. You need to be able to model what happens and have strictly fair outcomes. CAS systems, because the outcome isn't in much doubt, can be as rules light as you like. 4e is IME at the extreme rules-heavy end of the CAS systems, joined by little other than Mutants and Masterminds. Rules-light CAS can be as light as 3:16, which has two stats - FA (For Attacking) and NFA (Not For Attacking). But to do this you need Combat As Sport. Look at the systems I consider CAW (GURPS and Rolemaster spring to mind) and they IME have two things in common - high detail and grit.

 

[Aenghus]

However CAS systems generally have more rules, and express them more precisely (i.e. jargon), which makes system knowledge and content prep more difficult pound for pound.

Not my experience. New players of 4e have enough info on their character sheet to let them run their character. It takes time to run such a PC well, but the leniency of 4e doesnt demand super efficiency and they are far more self contained than eg spellcasters in previous editions, which required looking up the spells possibly scattered around various books.

CaW also punishes mistakes, and new players make lots of mistakes. Which means either the PCs die a lot, or the referee fudges. I haven't had either happen for new players in 4e

Content prep in 4e I found far, far easier than 3e, as I can skip makework like magic item and feat selection for NPCs, reskin monsters easily.

 

[Hassassin]

I disagree strongly on both points.

First, Jargon makes system mastery easier because you don't need to define the term each time you use it. 4e is IMO easier to master than AD&D for this reason.

Consistent use of terms and mechanics makes system mastery easier. Confusing jargon makes it harder. If you compare 4e to AD&D it is more consistent but uses more jargon, so I think which is easier to pick up depends on the person.

Second, CAW systems need, of necessity, to be rules heavy. You need to be able to model what happens and have strictly fair outcomes. CAS systems, because the outcome isn't in much doubt, can be as rules light as you like. 4e is IME at the extreme rules-heavy end of the CAS systems, joined by little other than Mutants and Masterminds. Rules-light CAS can be as light as 3:16, which has two stats - FA (For Attacking) and NFA (Not For Attacking). But to do this you need Combat As Sport. Look at the systems I consider CAW (GURPS and Rolemaster spring to mind) and they IME have two things in common - high detail and grit.

I think the exact opposite is true. For CAS to be enjoyable you need a certain amount of combat rules to keep things interesting. For CAW you can leave more to DM adjudication and let the dice decide. Either can of course be supported by very complex systems like GURPS, but how much of those rules is actually relevant to the CAW/CAS distinction?

 

[steenan]

Steenan, good reply. And am I right in thinking you're influenced by HeroQuest revised in the ideas you're suggesting?

I never read or played HeroQuest, but I read several of your posts referencing it. I also experimented with this kind of idea some time ago in a homebrew game we created with my wife.

It's not the most natural type of mechanics for myself - but for me the mechanical balance is of much lower priority than what I typically see on this boards. I just think that if one wants balance, it's better to let the game balance itself than to either force constraints on characters and gameplay or leave it to the GM.

While games shouldn't try to compensate for bad GMs (because they will run poor games anyway, and the compensating system will get into good GMs' way), they should give useful tools to unexperienced ones. Levels and encounter building guidelines are ok, but system that tunes itself to player skill is even better in my eyes.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Response to Fanaelialae:

In general I'm not really disagreeing with you because 4ed isn't an edge case, characters can use up Dailies and Healing Surges so if things go wrong in a fight there are consequences besides death (lost Dailies and Healing Surges). However, if 4ed nixed dailies and had Healing Surges be encounter-based instead of daily then that'd be a problem for me since what happens in one fight doesn't really impact what happens in another. There's still attrition in 4ed.

"However, things become far less predictable, so it's a pretty heavy trade-off."

Indeed, exactly the point I was making in my OP. For me this trade-off is well worth it.

"(low combat campaigns, where attrition is not a factor because you'll almost never see more than one combat per day)."

Unless characters don't refresh all of their resources at the start of the day but at the start of each story arc/longer time frame.

"Just to point out an alternative (though one that would be highly unpopular), you could completely eliminate the 15 MWD by eliminating all daily resources."

Including HP/healing surges? That goes back to the sliding scale of meaning/balance problem that I discussed earlier.

"Tactical play will always take longer than non-tactical play, IMO."

To some extent yes, but I think this can be helped by having more things for each character to worry about rather than having lots of modifiers. There's different ways to make combat more tactical and some eat up more time than others (modifier bloat is the worst IMO).

To answer your question regarding the elimination of daily resources, yes, that would include hp/healing surges as daily resources.

You could still have them under the "no incentive for a 15 MWD" model, but they would have to be encounter resources. HP would be restored after a short rest. If surges existed, they would limit the number of times you can receive healing during an encounter, and also be restored to full after a rest.

Again, I recognize that this model has its own shortcomings; I was illustrating that it is one approach to solving the 15 MWD problem. Moreover, I was pointing out that attrition is a major cause, if not the main cause, behind the 15 MWD.

The more impact attrition has upon the system, the more you will have to contend with the 15 MWD.

Why don't look at it as a win-win scenario?

Either you overcome what gets in your way, win your stakes and your satisfaction and shape the fiction your way, or you get something to help you win the next time.

And both ways, what happens is interesting. You keep winning and things become harder to provide a challenge - winning without any significant effort is boring. You lose and suffer consequences that shape the situation in surprising ways and the system helps you get back on top.

It's about the dramatic structure much more than about a game of numbers. In good stories, protagonists neither win every time nor get blocked by obstacles and left powerless. Usually, early success leads to an unexpected defeat, shocking revelation and a plot twist; characters are forced to change or abandon their plans, but they adapt and overcome the opposition. And often the cycle repeats. The "dynamic balance" I proposed aims for this kind of dynamics.

Not everyone wants to model that kind of dramatic structure.

Also it still strikes me as a negative feedback mechanism. Essentially a mechanic that models antagonistic DMing. "You overcame this challenge so I'm just going to keep making the challenges harder until you lose." I don't want a winning streak influencing my encounters, from either side of the screen. Let a hard encounter be hard. Not ultra hard if the PCs have been on a winning streak or easy if they lost recently.

On top of that, it's exceedingly meta-gamey. I still believe that it's a mechanic that can be easily gamed. Not every encounter will be as valuable, from a subjective standpoint, to the PCs so they can "throw" a less valuable encounter to gain an advantage in a more valuable encounter. Let's assume that, on their way to rescue the princess from the dragon, the PCs are accosted by my aforementioned bandits. The PCs surrender their gold to the bandits, knowing full well that now their encounter with the dragon will be easy as a result. The king's favor is priceless, after all.

I can only speak for myself, but I still don't like it.

 

[BobTheNob]

What I do like about this post is it reflects something that has been a growing concern since 2e.

I especially like the roles of the traditional 4. Not COMBAT roles, game roles. They did different things
a) Fighter = Fights
b) Theif = Adventurer
c) Mage = Wildcard
d) Cleric = Backup/support for when it went wrong (little bit of wildcard too)

It wasnt balanced, but it didnt need to be. It was fun. Every did something and it was fun. (Did I mention it was fun)

But increasingly, later editions have not really contributed much to D&D except to clarify and streamline combat (4e streamlined so much that fights took 3-4 hours...hang on, what?), making D&D a combat game. So much so that somewhere along the way the roles changed to "things you did in combat" (tank/leader e.t.c.)

This is where D&D lost its magic to me. If I want "the combat experience" there is a plethora of excellent computer games out there that will do it better for me than tabletop ever will. I want to play table-top however because I DONT want it to be about combat.

Well done to the OP, a well thought out piece.

 

[S'mon]

I disagree strongly on both points.

First, Jargon makes system mastery easier because you don't need to define the term each time you use it. 4e is IMO easier to master than AD&D for this reason.

Second, CAW systems need, of necessity, to be rules heavy. You need to be able to model what happens and have strictly fair outcomes.

No, CAW was traditionally often done as free kriegspiel - judgement of the referee/GM as sole arbitrator, with the aid of a die to aid in probabilistic determination: "3 in 6 chance your cavalry stand and fight, otherwise they rout". The very existence and use of rules-light systems like B/X D&D would seem to disprove your statement. Fairness and accurate modelling in CAW comes from the skill of the judge/GM, not from the system.

As for jargon - I certainly found 4e's precisely-defined, jargon-heavy, approach far harder than say AD&D's loosey-goosey writing. Stuff like [W] still gives me a slight headache.

 

[Libramarian]

I disagree strongly on both points.

First, Jargon makes system mastery easier because you don't need to define the term each time you use it. 4e is IMO easier to master than AD&D for this reason.

Second, CAW systems need, of necessity, to be rules heavy. You need to be able to model what happens and have strictly fair outcomes. CAS systems, because the outcome isn't in much doubt, can be as rules light as you like. 4e is IME at the extreme rules-heavy end of the CAS systems, joined by little other than Mutants and Masterminds. Rules-light CAS can be as light as 3:16, which has two stats - FA (For Attacking) and NFA (Not For Attacking). But to do this you need Combat As Sport. Look at the systems I consider CAW (GURPS and Rolemaster spring to mind) and they IME have two things in common - high detail and grit.

I think we have different understandings of CAW...I considered my comment to be pretty self evident -- in CAW play, more play happens outside the rules. Therefore you don't need as many rules.

Idk maybe I am the odd one out here. I was thinking of CAW as literally meaning play where you break or skirt the rules. Or at least expected procedure.

It's something that happens on a metagame level. It's not necessarily tied to any particular aesthetic or transcript of in-game events.

E.g. Indy shooting the guy with the scimitar could be either CAW or CAS, depending on whether this was surprising emergent behavior or he spent a feat or a power in order to get that ability.

(CAW play would have the strongest psychic connection to that moment. It feels like CAW. That's why it was given as an example of it. But you could produce that event in CAS.)

I better read Daztur's first essay again to make sure I've got a handle.