Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not the one who used the phrase "my balls hang low". And I haven't been waving banners for anything other than that I think the dichotomy (though I've been told that term is inaccurate) has validity.

Of course you haven't. On the other hand using army marching songs to illustrate the implications of describing things as war is, I believe, either fair or polite to the war side.

See, this I can deal with better.

I feel that labeling "Combat as War" as meaning "a desire for mismatched fights" is misleading. It's using a part of the concept to describe the whole.

An inherent part of the concept every time I've heard CaW supported. And you're ducking entirely the "Burn down the forest and turn the dungeon to mud" parts of CaW.

What if we left combat out of it entirely? What if CaW is equivalent to Hussar trying to ride giant centipedes through the desert to avoid unnecessary combat encounters? Nothing's being blown up or slaughtered, but the point is the same.

Then I'd say CaW is a 4e staple and much harder in 3.X and AD&D.

But if we want an Action Film/Heist Film dichotomy I think that works?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Please. In the condescension and inherently uncivil categories, CaW/CaS can't even get in the same room as "mother may I" and "murderhoboes".

Those have the virtue of being accurate. And are much more polite than any claim that a game is WoW - or anything other than a tabletop RPG.

And that's not even getting into the patently ridiculous "combat as bullying" and "combat as terrorism" claims.

So let me check. You're saying that a small band of heavily armed (non-government if it matters) people melting the building a lot of people live in and destroying them by destroying the building isn't terrorism? Because it's what Savage Wombat is advocating. And you're saying that a small band of (again non-governmental) people burning down where others live to eliminate them also isn't terrorism? Because again Savage Wombat is using exactly that as an example of CaW on this thread.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Let me try this example.

Gary is running Tomb of Horrors. One of the players, Robilar, deals with every trap in the whole dungeon (more or less) by throwing orc henchman at them.

Robilar thinks this is smart play, and the DM appears to agree because he's allowing it.

Another player (who I have to make up) thinks this is boring play, with none of the excitement he was expecting from a creepy tomb.

Are these not two very different play styles? Styles that are in tension?

If such a difference in play styles exists, it is useful to come up with terms to describe the styles, so that one player can explain why he liked or disliked the game.

The identification of the difference in styles does not imply that a particular game, player, or ruleset is forced into one category or the other. Simply that they are very different approaches.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Those have the virtue of being accurate. And are much more polite than any claim that a game is WoW - or anything other than a tabletop RPG.

The fact that you think that is part of the problem, I fear.

So let me check. You're saying that a small band of heavily armed (non-government if it matters) people melting the building a lot of people live in and destroying them by destroying the building isn't terrorism? Because it's what Savage Wombat is advocating. And you're saying that a small band of (again non-governmental) people burning down where others live to eliminate them also isn't terrorism? Because again Savage Wombat is using exactly that as an example of CaW on this thread.

I haven't advocated anything. I'm discussing two different play styles. If you read back, I've even said I don't play that way.
[MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] - this is what I mean. He's not arguing with what I've said, he's arguing with what he decided I meant.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The fact that you think that is part of the problem, I fear.

That I think which part?

I haven't advocated anything. I'm discussing two different play styles. If you read back, I've even said I don't play that way.

So the illustrations you were using for CaW were examples of terrorism. Is this your case?

 

[Hussar]

Sure, they might be different approaches, since play preferences obviously differ. But, your point about the Dm allowing things is why I have a problem with the dichotomy you are presenting. If it's down to what the DM allows, then there really isn't any difference, they're both sports. Neither is about the player choosing option A or B, it's about what the DM will enable. And since it's basically all down to that, what's the point in painting them differently?

At the end of the day, it's all contrived scenarios. It's artifice. Hopefully what the Dm wants to see and what the player's want to attempt line up and everyone goes home happy with a fun session. When they don't line up, everyone is pissed off. But, painting the two lines as opposites is covering up the fact that they are much, much closer than far apart.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I haven't advocated anything. I'm discussing two different play styles. If you read back, I've even said I don't play that way.

[MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] - this is what I mean. He's not arguing with what I've said, he's arguing with what he decided I meant.

Hey, keep me out of this! What I'm interested in is finding better terms so we can actually discuss stuff. Didn't you come up with some earlier? Like one of the was "Resource Management" or something? I mean, that's what Robilar is doing - he's managing resources (presumably weighing the price of insane/mind-controlled orcs, in terms of GP or spells used or whatever, against the risk of traps, and whether getting said orcs killed actually shows how the trap works).

 

[Savage Wombat]

So the illustrations you were using for CaW were examples of terrorism. Is this your case?

I describe two different styles of game play. I'm saying nothing about whether one is better than the other.

If you are saying that "CaW is bad game-play because it encourages acts that could be described as terrorism" please do so.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Hey, keep me out of this! What I'm interested in is finding better terms so we can actually discuss stuff. Didn't you come up with some earlier? Like one of the was "Resource Management" or something? I mean, that's what Robilar is doing - he's managing resources (presumably weighing the price of insane/mind-controlled orcs, in terms of GP or spells used or whatever, against the risk of traps, and whether getting said orcs killed actually shows how the trap works).

Someone did, certainly. Possibly back in the original thread.

I thought the "Combat as Means" vs. "Combat as Ends" had merit, though it doesn't describe quite the same thing. It's still possible that what I'm seeing has to do with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's "scene reframing" thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I describe two different styles of game play. I'm saying nothing about whether one is better than the other.

If you are saying that "CaW is bad game-play because it encourages acts that could be described as terrorism" please do so.

I'm not. I'm saying "When we look at your illustrations, terrorism is a much more accurate term for what you are claiming one side is than war."

If you can claim that there's no condescension in war because it's an accurate term, then if terrorism is more accurate (as it is) then switching to Combat as Terrorism should be fine.

I've suggested strategic/tactical focus and I've suggested Action Movie/Heist Movie as better and less troublesome ways of expressing what you are trying to get at.