D&D 5E Combat as war, sport, or ??

[Micah Sweet]

- The combat as war/sport distinction arose to describe the relative differences between editions of dnd. To the extent that system is important in influencing playstyle--perhaps it isn't so much--it seems to me helpful to have some way of describing how combat varies across the design of the different editions. This framework was also helpful for OSR designers in accentuating features of combat as war; for example, into the odd and derivative games 'attack the character sheet' in ways that make characters who suffer wounds less effective.

- The "as" in combat as war/sport is not an equals sign. It's not, "in this version of dnd, combat=war." It's a simile, a figure of speech. In no version of dnd is combat exactly a sport, outside of the dm setting up some narrative contrivances. The terms "war" and "sport" are used to indicate a set of differences, as the op describes.



I don't know; Blades in the Dark characters can get pretty powerful after a few advancements. Generally you can avoid retiring a character until you feel ready to have them drop out of the story. Meanwhile, in my OSE games several characters have suffered permanent injuries (not houseruling anything, using necrotic gnome modules).

One oddity of this conversation is that it seems the differences between different editions of dnd--which are different systems--are being described as unimportant, whereas differences between "dnd" and other systems are described as very important. I don't know what to make of that, but it seems very inconsistent

Branding I guess.

 

[Malmuria]

It is at least a bit inconsistent. However, for those who view the difference between combat as war vs as sport as a play style issue rather than a hard-coded rules issue, it's not that odd. You can bring the war play style to pretty much any edition of D&D even if there are editions that tend to push toward the sport direction. And you could, at least theoretically, transport the sport style back to 1e/2e where the encounter balancing tools are more primitive.

I think ICRPG and Worlds Without Number are good examples of taking an early-edition framework (esp the latter) and adding tactical elements.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Another instance of verisimilitude. That's how you can tell the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

And so combat stays at sport, where PCs can laugh about how many limbs they've gone through in the last 10 fights. But that is the D&D way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What type of games do you play? I know you like 4e, so are your preferred games more narrative or story game than trad D&D?

That depends what you mean by "trad D&D". I tend to favour storygames and full on old school or some of its OSR successors, but dislike several of the things that are often called Trad. My 5e campaign before last (the last one was straight Witchlight) was, for example, based round a very much Caverns of Thracia inspired homebrew dungeon using The Hexenbracken for much of the wider environment for an open table that filled up very fast. Meanwhile the non-D&D campaign I'm currently running is in Blades in the Dark.

Level Up uses Fatigue and Strife to represent the kind of trauma you're talking about, all within a mostly-5e framework. It doesn't have to be the way you're saying.

That it doesn't have to be is true - as is the fact in that literally every single edition that has ever been published it is true. To move into a world where official D&D played to rather than ignores those aspects is to move into a parallel universe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends what you mean by "trad D&D". I tend to favour storygames and full on old school or some of its OSR successors, but dislike several of the things that are often called Trad. My 5e campaign before last (the last one was straight Witchlight) was, for example, based round a very much Caverns of Thracia inspired homebrew dungeon using The Hexenbracken for much of the wider environment for an open table that filled up very fast. Meanwhile the non-D&D campaign I'm currently running is in Blades in the Dark.

That it doesn't have to be is true - as is the fact in that literally every single edition that has ever been published it is true. To move into a world where official D&D played to rather than ignores those aspects is to move into a parallel universe.

The only thing about official D&D i care about at this point is setting lore, and that's only because for legal reasons I have to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The only thing about official D&D i care about at this point is setting lore, and that's only because for legal reasons I have to.

I can understand that - but I don't consider homebrew or spinoffs to actually be D&D for the purposes of discussions. Level Up, for example, is its own game (and really not what I'm looking for although there are ideas to loot) and shouldn't be treated as baseline D&D.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The only thing about official D&D i care about at this point is setting lore, and that's only because for legal reasons I have to.

Why would you have to care for legal reasons?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would you have to care for legal reasons?

Because I like TSR's settings, and WotC owns them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand that - but I don't consider homebrew or spinoffs to actually be D&D for the purposes of discussions. Level Up, for example, is its own game (and really not what I'm looking for although there are ideas to loot) and shouldn't be treated as baseline D&D.

I understand that position, but disagree. Level Up is just as much D&D as 3e, or Pathfinder, or Dungeon Crawl Classics. WotC's legal ownership of the name "D&D" is the ONLY thing they have over any 3pp, and it doesn't make them any better than any of them. If a thread just wants to talk about WotC, they should say up front that's all that matters.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Because I like TSR's settings, and WotC owns them.

Ah ok, I understand that. I interpreted your sentence differently.