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

[GMforPowergamers]

Right, but I feel like on a D&D message board we can hold ourselves to a slightly more precise standard than that.

agreed. I am just saying that in the wide world D&D is pretty much synonymous with RPG

 

[payn]

the hardest part about finding these things is to find terms that are not going to paint some in unfavorable light when really it is just 'how you like to play'

I really think strategy and/or Tactics does a great job of it compared to vs. I do think it also goes beyond 'how you like to play', and into the design of a game and the play it suggests/supports. There is value in understanding those distinctions.

You could use the terms symmetrical and asymmetric.

I really like that you used "and" in there instead of "vs.", however, symmetric and asymmetric implies polar opposites. This word choice restores that basis of conflict.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I like the analysis here, but the word heroic is perhaps even worse than war or sport used in previous frameworks. The word is notorious for meaning different things to the RPG community. Some folks see heroic as in deeds done by the characters. Attempting and succeeding at things that are dangerous and risky, but for a very good cause. Others, view heroic as having power and abilities to do amazing things beyond the average person. Which is why you see a lot of comments saying things like, "X edition low level characters dont have many HP, spells, and/or abilities so it doesnt feel heroic." Also, pragmatic is very pedestrian of a term in comparison leaving the impression that it lacks luster and appeal.

I also have issue with the idea that war/strategy is "fighting dirty", and sport/tactical is "fighting fair". You could use strategy to ensure a fair fight, you could also apply tactics in an underhanded way. I believe the ideal focus is on the game design and the tools at the players disposal. There is tactics in 3E, but also strategy in 4E. It helps to look at is the mechanical design of each to see where they lean. 3E with its stacking spells, wealth of magic items, and myriad of skills. 4E with its defined roles and in combat riders. The design of each pushes toward strategy or tactics, but doesn't eliminate the opposite. 5E lacks a strong push or mechanical heft to really provide a solid experience in either, but still has both.

That is why I prefer the term Protagonist to Hero, if signifies that the PCs are significant in the world without implications as to their character but that they are not expected to die in a random encounter. I think this works with what @EzekielRaiden refers to as Heroic Tactical Challenge and Heroic Strategic Challenge. I also think that what he refers to as Heroic Strategic Challenge is a range of Protagonist play where the party are Big Damn Heroes-casual play to more nuanced characters in an ongoing story in either Trad story form or more modern narrative types with varying level of character drama and development.
What he refers to as "Pragmatic" types are what I refer to as "Operational" as the system and resource management is more important and the peril to the characters is elevated. I think that both Gygaxian "Skilled Play" can be seen as a resourced based type of survival horror, in that lack of resources/planning can kill you, without any overt horror tropes. But can encompass any exploration/sandbox type play.
But yes, it is an excellent analysis.

 

[payn]

That is why I prefer the term Protagonist to Hero, if signifies that the PCs are significant in the world without implications as to their character but that they are not expected to die in a random encounter. I think this works with what @EzekielRaiden refers to as Heroic Tactical Challenge and Heroic Strategic Challenge. I also think that what he refers to as Heroic Strategic Challenge is a range of Protagonist play where the party are Big Damn Heroes-casual play to more nuanced characters in an ongoing story in either Trad story form or more modern narrative types with varying level of character drama and development.
What he refers to as "Pragmatic" types are what I refer to as "Operational" as the system and resource management is more important and the peril to the characters is elevated. I think that both Gygaxian "Skilled Play" can be seen as a resourced based type of survival horror, in that lack of resources/planning can kill you, without any overt horror tropes. But can encompass any exploration/sandbox type play.
But yes, it is an excellent analysis.

Thats fine, but I think we are complicating the discussion. I think you can have heroic/protagonist narratives in both strategic and tactical focused games. One isn't inherently old school and the other modern.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I really think strategy and/or Tactics does a great job of it compared to vs. I do think it also goes beyond 'how you like to play', and into the design of a game and the play it suggests/supports. There is value in understanding those distinctions.


I really like that you used "and" in there instead of "vs.", however, symmetric and asymmetric implies polar opposites. This word choice restores that basis of conflict.

The choice of polar opposites was intentional, as that allows for a scale, as opposed to strategic and tactical which are more of a Venn diagram.

Strategy and tactics can exist at any table to various degrees.

Whereas symmetric and asymmetric are trying to convey two distinct approaches. They might both be used at a table over the course of a campaign, but never at the same time. And some groups might strongly prefer one approach over the other.

Strategy and tactics can both exist in either symmetric or asymmetric gameplay, so it doesn't convey the same distinction of a preference for a certain play style.

 

[Fanaelialae]

agreed. I am just saying that in the wide world D&D is pretty much synonymous with RPG

Yeah, when my aunt asks me about my gaming, we always refer to any game I'm playing as "Dungeons and Dumplings", a long running joke from when I was 8 (for context, I'm now 41).

 

[payn]

The choice of polar opposites was intentional, as that allows for a scale, as opposed to strategic and tactical which are more of a Venn diagram.

Yes, that is the point to get away from polar opposites as every D&D has had strategy and tactics included in design.

Strategy and tactics can exist at any table to various degrees.

Whereas symmetric and asymmetric are trying to convey two distinct approaches. They might both be used at a table over the course of a campaign, but never at the same time. And some groups might strongly prefer one approach over the other.
Strategy and tactics can both exist in either symmetric or asymmetric gameplay, so it doesn't convey the same distinction of a preference for a certain play style.

No, I don't need mutually exclusive things to articulate my preferred playstyle. There are more than two approaches to this anyways. A game's design can lean heavily into one aspect, both aspects, or neither. My ability to enjoy the game will rely entirely on how well one or both of these aspects is supported, or how easily I can adjust the dials to get what I want from it.

It is important to remember this framework is about combat, not the D&D experience in total. Though, scope creep naturally happens because of its e.war origins.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Thats fine, but I think we are complicating the discussion. I think you can have heroic/protagonist narratives in both strategic and tactical focused games. One isn't inherently old school and the other modern.

Then I think I have failed to communicate because contrasts between old school and modern is the last thing I want to draw. There was plenty of heroic and story focused play back in the old days alongside Gygaxian "Skilled play".
However, I think there is value in characterising the difference between playstyles that prioritise the player characters as protagonists in an ongoing story (it may be heroic or otherwise) and that where the challenge is overcoming the hazards of the environment as presented by the rules and setting.

 

[payn]

Then I think I have failed to communicate because contrasts between old school and modern is the last thing I want to draw. There was plenty of heroic and story focused play back in the old days alongside Gygaxian "Skilled play".
However, I think there is value in characterising the difference between playstyles that prioritise the player characters as protagonists in an ongoing story (it may be heroic or otherwise) and that where the challenge is overcoming the hazards of the environment as presented by the rules and setting.

I too, think that is a valuable layer of the onion. For example, how strong the players are offensively, defensively, HPs, etc... What are the healing and resurrection mechanics, if any? Are there meta-currency options that allow the players to save their character's bacon? Mechanics can fall into either (or both) strategy and tactics buckets. Instead of labeling them as a playstyle, I think I would prefer to let the mechanics do the talking themselves. Then again, a lot of the conflict seems to come from high context communication style such as that. Though, if you label it, folks assume its not only the intended path, but the only path. Damned if you do...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I too, think that is a valuable layer of the onion. For example, how strong the players are offensively, defensively, HPs, etc... What are the healing and resurrection mechanics, if any? Are there meta-currency options that allow the players to save their character's bacon? Mechanics can fall into either (or both) strategy and tactics buckets. Instead of labeling them as a playstyle, I think I would prefer to let the mechanics do the talking themselves. Then again, a lot of the conflict seems to come from high context communication style such as that. Though, if you label it, folks assume its not only the intended path, but the only path. Damned if you do...

Still If we do not label it, it is very difficult to carry out an analytic conversation on the topic. That said, I think what we are trying to label is not so much a specific playstyle as family of priorities that can influence individual group styles.