D&D General Discuss: Combat as War in D&D

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t believe there’s a tangible difference since the DM creates that fiction and also any mechanical processes used in its resolution. Maybe an illusory difference though.

So, where does my campaign in which the 3rd level village heroes, having beat up the goblins in a vicious guerilla war and advanced to 3rd level, are the most powerful creatures in their entire region, at the very least? Isn't this a perfectly good D&D campaign? Didn't I run the fight against the goblins in a 'warlike fashion'? It seems to me if you are going to call this something besides 'CaW' by your definition, then you are missing some factor in your stated definition!

Personally I think you have an unstated corollary, one that I at least hinted at earlier, which is that CaW really, in this view, relies on the enemy being so much stronger that they cannot be beaten except by subterfuge, or some sort of tactical or strategic ploy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So if the dm by fiat creates a world such that PCs going after level appropriate threats will never become the target of more powerful foes.

yes that works, but isn’t it still occurring via dm fiat?

Technically, yes, but I think we have to consider what a useful definition of DM fiat is. We could use it to encompass literally everything the DM does, whether it's to deus ex machina style save the PCs bacon, or adding a 0th level commoner to the world who is the mayor's daughter. However, I would posit that such a definition, while technically true, is not functionally useful.

I think a more useful definition (and the way the term is typically used) is to mean when the DM intervenes to steer events in a desired direction.

If you create a city where Al Capone is the top criminal element, but there are other criminals lower in the pecking order, including those that aren't associated with Capone, I'd argue it's not an exercise of fiat. It's just the DM creating a city and populating it with NPCs.

Fiat would be if the PCs went after the low level drug dealer, and afterwards the DM decides that this drug dealer was Capone's nephew (thereby forcing the players into conflict with Capone). The opposite would also be fiat (originally having the dealer be one of Capone's men, but changing that retroactively because the DM doesn't want that conflict to occur).

If the DM creates the NPCs and then allows the PCs to interact with those NPCs as they were designed, it typically won't be fiat in a meaningful sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mostly agree with this except one thing - isn’t it mostly dm fiat to not have any enemies that outclass them and are intelligent and ruthless go after them?

I mean I agree doing so doesn’t make a great game, but what’s really preventing that from occurring beyond the dm choosing for it not to.

But isn't it also pretty much DM fiat what tactics and strategies are viable for either side to try to employ and what the actual results are? I mean, neither the rules nor the setting in any reasonable RPG will cover even a fraction of the factors which might be relevant.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, where does my campaign in which the 3rd level village heroes, having beat up the goblins in a vicious guerilla war and advanced to 3rd level, are the most powerful creatures in their entire region, at the very least? Isn't this a perfectly good D&D campaign?

This is such an odd question because I’m not saying anis good or bad.

Didn't I run the fight against the goblins in a 'warlike fashion'? It seems to me if you are going to call this something besides 'CaW' by your definition, then you are missing some factor in your stated definition!

you’ve not provided enough details here for me to make an assessment of whether this particular example is combat as war

Personally I think you have an unstated corollary, one that I at least hinted at earlier, which is that CaW really, in this view, relies on the enemy being so much stronger that they cannot be beaten except by subterfuge, or some sort of tactical or strategic ploy.

The only corollary is that such enemies exist and aren’t prevented from targeting the PCs.

 

[FrogReaver]

But isn't it also pretty much DM fiat what tactics and strategies are viable for either side to try to employ and what the actual results are? I mean, neither the rules nor the setting in any reasonable RPG will cover even a fraction of the factors which might be relevant.

I agree but it’s not clear why this is being brought up?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is such an odd question because I’m not saying anis good or bad.

It wasn't about good or bad, it was about determining the particulars of the definition.

you’ve not provided enough details here for me to make an assessment of whether this particular example is combat as war

You can answer the question. The context of the description and the question is pretty clear, are you literally going to tell me you can say nothing unless I give you a blow by blow account of every event in play? Don't be ridiculous.

The only corollary is that such enemies exist and aren’t prevented from targeting the PCs.

Exactly! They are enemies and they are not defeatable by routine means. I think we can take it that 'enemy' means there will be at least potential targeting. Certainly if someone is your enemy they have a motive to harm you, and being of significantly greater power, that implies means. Granted, as a weak guy I might be able to avoid that wrath by some means, hiding, gaining strong allies, acquiring some 'trump card', etc. Your OP however seems to strongly imply that any 'genuine CaW' game will inevitably lead to the demise of the PCs at the behest of said powerful enemy.

Again, this implies another necessary corollary, that a game in which this course doesn't play out lacks something of the character of CaW. Dismissing my reasoning offhand won't make it invalid...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree but it’s not clear why this is being brought up?

Well, just that CaW must then be a TYPE OF FICTION. I think I've already elaborated on that point in a bunch of posts up thread. There are no ACTUAL strategies being employed, just the RP of strategizing. It may be that part of that is an assessment of the fictional quality of the strategizing RP vis-a-vis what has already been established about the scenario, and the GM's (maybe also the player's) general feeling about that (IE plausibility). So, in character the plans they come up with may look a lot like being strategic or tactical, but in the real world you also consider every possibility, at least inherently. The process in the game, for the players, is more like "what is it actually likely this GM will be willing to spring on us that he hasn't told us about yet?"

 

[Xetheral]

So if the dm by fiat creates a world such that PCs going after level appropriate threats will never become the target of more powerful foes.

yes that works, but isn’t it still occurring via dm fiat?

If the DM creates a world with a plausible distribution of threats, and then the PCs, via deliberate and successful strategy, manage to only earn the enmity of the threats that they are able to outmaneuver and neutralize, that's not DM fiat--that's a party "winning" a Combat-as-War campaign.

Sure, how hard it may be for the PCs to plausibly manage that feat depends a ton on the design of the game world. But the DM's choices in designing the game world are nothing more than setting the difficulty level of the campaign in advance. I don't see an advance decision to run an easier or a harder campaign as an exercise of "DM fiat" as the term is typically used.

 

[FrogReaver]

It wasn't about good or bad, it was about determining the particulars of the definition.

That’s not what it appeared you were doing

You can answer the question. The context of the description and the question is pretty clear, are you literally going to tell me you can say nothing unless I give you a blow by blow account of every event in play? Don't be ridiculous.

I’ll give you a chance to tone down the rhetoric or we can end the discussion. Your call.

Exactly! They are enemies and they are not defeatable by routine means. I think we can take it that 'enemy' means there will be at least potential targeting. Certainly if someone is your enemy they have a motive to harm you, and being of significantly greater power, that implies means. Granted, as a weak guy I might be able to avoid that wrath by some means, hiding, gaining strong allies, acquiring some 'trump card', etc. Your OP however seems to strongly imply that any 'genuine CaW' game will inevitably lead to the demise of the PCs at the behest of said powerful enemy.

you seem to be reading to much into my use of the word enemies. Perhaps potential enemies is a better descriptor.

I agree with that assessment of my OP and I still believe that. The only reason it wouldn’t eventually happen is if the dm is weighting the scales in some way so that it doesn’t.

Again, this implies another necessary corollary, that a game in which this course doesn't play out lacks something of the character of CaW. Dismissing my reasoning offhand won't make it invalid...

That’s essentially the point of my OP so I don’t know if I’d call it a corollary.

the point is that what typically gets called ‘combat as war’ has the dms hands all over ensuring PCs face either only the challenges they choose or challenges they don’t choose that won’t overwhelm them. In practice doing that yields a game much closer to seal team 6 vs mooks with the occasional helping of them meeting up with enemies seal team 6 equivalent.

that is it seems combat as war as typically thought is just a more extravagant system of combat as sport.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the DM creates a world with a plausible distribution of threats, and then the PCs, via deliberate and successful strategy, manage to only earn the enmity of the threats that they are able to outmaneuver and neutralize, that's not DM fiat--that's a party "winning" a Combat-as-War campaign.

The issue in this version is that all the factions sit back and wait to get poked by the PCs instead of at least some actively going out and engaging with the PCs.

the notion that they only assault the PCs if the PCs first assault them is theDM fiat piece I’m talking about.

Sure, how hard it may be for the PCs to plausibly manage that feat depends a ton on the design of the game world. But the DM's choices in designing the game world are nothing more than setting the difficulty level of the campaign in advance. I don't see an advance decision to run an easier or a harder campaign as an exercise of "DM fiat" as the term is typically used.

One can make a plausible fictional justification for anything. So I don’t really buy that having a plausible fictional justification for the leave the PCs alone until they attack us behavior is anything more than the dm tipping the scales in the PCs favor - not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that - but if the dm is tipping the scales to keep the PCs from being decimated is that really CaW?