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

[payn]

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.

Right, I'm aiming for generalities that can lead to specifics. Many of these labels go straight to an evocative place and its hard to pull back from that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Right, I'm aiming for generalities that can lead to specifics. Many of these labels go straight to an evocative place and its hard to pull back from that.

So how do see this work for an analysis?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Well...

The intent is that heroic means "fighting fair," not that "tactical" does. So that would be rather a problem.

Edit: pulling the new section out into its own post since people already +1'd this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right, I'm aiming for generalities that can lead to specifics. Many of these labels go straight to an evocative place and its hard to pull back from that.

I would prefer "fairly evocative and slightly not-ideal" to both "very evocative and VERY not-ideal" and "dull but totally free of issues."

So... let's talk words.

"Heroic" does carry a bit of baggage. Some folks think high-flying action. Others think paragons of virtue (the dictionary meaning of the term, which is what I was aiming for.) Some think Greek heroes, towering mighty figures who do big things even if it destroys them. I think this cloud is reasonably addressed purely through being clear what one means. So, when I use "heroic," I am referring to the "fair play" stuff. I am specifically seeking to identify games that, on the net (more on this later), favor a more "morally upstanding" or "honorable" or sportsmanlike set of behavior.

Personally, I'm not sure how one can do much better than "pragmatic" for the other side of this, because literally every other description that comes to my mind is deeply unflattering. So...again, I think just giving a clear definition and sticking to it is the fix here. There is nothing negative meant by pragmatism, the focus on getting results, regardless of whether they are socially approved or morally meritorious.

It is now later, and this is the more: I disagree with you that opposites on a spectrum are useless. They can still be useful even in a world where the two sides can coexist, because we can speak of the central tendency or overall preference of a design. It might be, for instance, that 3.5e is designed with both Heroic elements (there are right and wrong actions in combat and you should avoid the wrong ones even if they would lead to victory) and Pragmatic ones (there is only the goal, and methods which achieve it; handwringing about who was "right" is a luxury for the winner), but overall it may lean one way or the other (e.g., I would argue that it actually ends up being extremely Pragmatic, despite the designers explicitly trying to make it very Heroic, and that this disconnect is one of the biggest secondary reasons why the game's design is so deeply flawed.) Central tendencies and overall pattern can still be very useful, so long as we recognize what they mean and the subtleties within, like the difference between "this game is neither strongly Heroic nor strongly Pragmatic, as it doesn't really consider such things," vs "this game ends up being about equally Heroic and Pragmatic because it has a balanced presentation with strong elements of both," vs "this game can't decide whether to be Heroic or Pragmatic, and the disjointed efforts to be both things at once leaves it confused and self-conflicting."

 

[payn]

I would prefer "fairly evocative and slightly not-ideal" to both "very evocative and VERY not-ideal" and "dull but totally free of issues."

So... let's talk words.

"Heroic" does carry a bit of baggage. Some folks think high-flying action. Others think paragons of virtue (the dictionary meaning of the term, which is what I was aiming for.) Some think Greek heroes, towering mighty figures who do big things even if it destroys them. I think this cloud is reasonably addressed purely through being clear what one means. So, when I use "heroic," I am referring to the "fair play" stuff. I am specifically seeking to identify games that, on the net (more on this later), favor a more "morally upstanding" or "honorable" or sportsmanlike set of behavior.

Personally, I'm not sure how one can do much better than "pragmatic" for the other side of this, because literally every other description that comes to my mind is deeply unflattering. So...again, I think just giving a clear definition and sticking to it is the fix here. There is nothing negative meant by pragmatism, the focus on getting results, regardless of whether they are socially approved or morally meritorious.

It is now later, and this is the more: I disagree with you that opposites on a spectrum are useless. They can still be useful even in a world where the two sides can coexist, because we can speak of the central tendency or overall preference of a design. It might be, for instance, that 3.5e is designed with both Heroic elements (there are right and wrong actions in combat and you should avoid the wrong ones even if they would lead to victory) and Pragmatic ones (there is only the goal, and methods which achieve it; handwringing about who was "right" is a luxury for the winner), but overall it may lean one way or the other (e.g., I would argue that it actually ends up being extremely Pragmatic, despite the designers explicitly trying to make it very Heroic, and that this disconnect is one of the biggest secondary reasons why the game's design is so deeply flawed.) Central tendencies and overall pattern can still be very useful, so long as we recognize what they mean and the subtleties within, like the difference between "this game is neither strongly Heroic nor strongly Pragmatic, as it doesn't really consider such things," vs "this game ends up being about equally Heroic and Pragmatic because it has a balanced presentation with strong elements of both," vs "this game can't decide whether to be Heroic or Pragmatic, and the disjointed efforts to be both things at once leaves it confused and self-conflicting."

I see. I'm not particularly looking to pigeonhole playstyles or place values on games that promote them. I see that as the original sin of combat as war vs combat as sport framework. I'll politely bow out of this now.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would prefer "fairly evocative and slightly not-ideal" to both "very evocative and VERY not-ideal" and "dull but totally free of issues."

So... let's talk words.

"Heroic" does carry a bit of baggage. Some folks think high-flying action. Others think paragons of virtue (the dictionary meaning of the term, which is what I was aiming for.) Some think Greek heroes, towering mighty figures who do big things even if it destroys them. I think this cloud is reasonably addressed purely through being clear what one means. So, when I use "heroic," I am referring to the "fair play" stuff. I am specifically seeking to identify games that, on the net (more on this later), favor a more "morally upstanding" or "honorable" or sportsmanlike set of behavior.

Personally, I'm not sure how one can do much better than "pragmatic" for the other side of this, because literally every other description that comes to my mind is deeply unflattering. So...again, I think just giving a clear definition and sticking to it is the fix here. There is nothing negative meant by pragmatism, the focus on getting results, regardless of whether they are socially approved or morally meritorious.

I question the divide here, is the divide the "party character stance", i.e. "Heroic" vs "Pragmatic" or a level further back, "challenging play" vs protagonistic play?
I think that one could play pragmatically with in a game framing where the party characters are expected to be competent and have internal resources to survive routine challenges and heroic play in a game where the ability of the characters to survive challenges requires careful planning (skilled play) and resource management (as well as vice versa).

It is now later, and this is the more: I disagree with you that opposites on a spectrum are useless. They can still be useful even in a world where the two sides can coexist, because we can speak of the central tendency or overall preference of a design. It might be, for instance, that 3.5e is designed with both Heroic elements (there are right and wrong actions in combat and you should avoid the wrong ones even if they would lead to victory) and Pragmatic ones (there is only the goal, and methods which achieve it; handwringing about who was "right" is a luxury for the winner), but overall it may lean one way or the other (e.g., I would argue that it actually ends up being extremely Pragmatic, despite the designers explicitly trying to make it very Heroic, and that this disconnect is one of the biggest secondary reasons why the game's design is so deeply flawed.) Central tendencies and overall pattern can still be very useful, so long as we recognize what they mean and the subtleties within, like the difference between "this game is neither strongly Heroic nor strongly Pragmatic, as it doesn't really consider such things," vs "this game ends up being about equally Heroic and Pragmatic because it has a balanced presentation with strong elements of both," vs "this game can't decide whether to be Heroic or Pragmatic, and the disjointed efforts to be both things at once leaves it confused and self-conflicting."

I would agree that these things exist on a spectrum, more a board Venn diagram type sets with a lot of intersecting overlap.

I am not at all convinced that 2.x had a position on the heroic/pragmatic axis but was built to support playstyles where the characters were protagonists in their own story (heroic or otherwise) but still supported a more setting/environment challenge style of play but 4e was more explicitly protoganstic (everyone as a movie action hero - perhaps somewhat of an exaggeration but I hope you get my meaning). 5e has rolled back to a more middle ground but provides more support for the character self-sufficiency (hence the frequent complaints about it being "EASY MODE")
Or of course, I could be completely mistaking your position and we are talking at cross purposes here.

 

[Lanefan]

It is important to remember this framework is about combat, not the D&D experience in total.

I've come to the conclusion that in fact it is about much more than combat: it's about overall playstyle. Combat is just a part of it.

Gritty is near one end of the rail, but I don't have a good term for the other end so 'sporty' will have to do for now.

If the characters are frequently fighting for survival, Bad Things happening to party members is an accepted fact of life, and the DM's not pulling any punches, that's gritty. If resources are often scarce and-or are difficult to recover, that's gritty. If the characters aren't always expected to be the 'heroes' and the game still works just fine if they're not, that's gritty. If the characters fit right in as normal inhabitants of the setting, that's gritty. If the players can't plan out their characters' life-paths ahead of time because adventuring will likely either kill the characters or drastically change them, that's gritty.

Flip side: if the characters rarely if ever have to worry about their own survival and-or Bad Things happening to them, and-or if the DM is pulling punches to keep characters alive (often in service to 'the story'), that's sporty. If resources are easy to recover or handwaved, that's sporty. If the characters have to be heroes for things to function, that's sporty. If the characters are noticeably different from others in the setting just because of their PC status, that's sporty. If the players can plan out their characters' life-paths during char-gen in the expectation that path will be walked in full, that's sporty.

And while each edition or system leans toward one or the other* of these, each individual table still ends up making what they want out of it. It's just sometimes easier if the system in use isn't fighting you too hard.

So, gritty vs [sporty]. That's my take for the day.

* - or even toward both at once, in different aspects - 2e was bad for this as it tried to build a sporty game on a gritty chassis and just ended up kinda confused.

 

[payn]

I've come to the conclusion that in fact it is about much more than combat: it's about overall playstyle. Combat is just a part of it.

Gritty is near one end of the rail, but I don't have a good term for the other end so 'sporty' will have to do for now.

If the characters are frequently fighting for survival, Bad Things happening to party members is an accepted fact of life, and the DM's not pulling any punches, that's gritty. If resources are often scarce and-or are difficult to recover, that's gritty. If the characters aren't always expected to be the 'heroes' and the game still works just fine if they're not, that's gritty. If the characters fit right in as normal inhabitants of the setting, that's gritty. If the players can't plan out their characters' life-paths ahead of time because adventuring will likely either kill the characters or drastically change them, that's gritty.

Flip side: if the characters rarely if ever have to worry about their own survival and-or Bad Things happening to them, and-or if the DM is pulling punches to keep characters alive (often in service to 'the story'), that's sporty. If resources are easy to recover or handwaved, that's sporty. If the characters have to be heroes for things to function, that's sporty. If the characters are noticeably different from others in the setting just because of their PC status, that's sporty. If the players can plan out their characters' life-paths during char-gen in the expectation that path will be walked in full, that's sporty.

And while each edition or system leans toward one or the other* of these, each individual table still ends up making what they want out of it. It's just sometimes easier if the system in use isn't fighting you too hard.

So, gritty vs [sporty]. That's my take for the day.

* - or even toward both at once, in different aspects - 2e was bad for this as it tried to build a sporty game on a gritty chassis and just ended up kinda confused.

So, this is in other words a less intellectual reshuffling of the deck to make playstyle X superior to Y. At least you are up front about it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I've come to the conclusion that in fact it is about much more than combat: it's about overall playstyle. Combat is just a part of it.

I would agree.

Gritty is near one end of the rail, but I don't have a good term for the other end so 'sporty' will have to do for now.

If the characters are frequently fighting for survival, Bad Things happening to party members is an accepted fact of life, and the DM's not pulling any punches, that's gritty. If resources are often scarce and-or are difficult to recover, that's gritty. If the characters aren't always expected to be the 'heroes' and the game still works just fine if they're not, that's gritty. If the characters fit right in as normal inhabitants of the setting, that's gritty. If the players can't plan out their characters' life-paths ahead of time because adventuring will likely either kill the characters or drastically change them, that's gritty.

It also encourages a certain meta on the players part, what Gygax refers to as "skilled play"; the whole 10' pole, bullseye lantern, steel mirror, bag of flour to detect invisible creature's thing, what I thinking as challenge play. This one spectrum based on challenging environments and can be very meta but slide toward:

Flip side: if the characters rarely if ever have to worry about their own survival and-or Bad Things happening to them, and-or if the DM is pulling punches to keep characters alive (often in service to 'the story'), that's sporty. If resources are easy to recover or handwaved, that's sporty. If the characters have to be heroes for things to function, that's sporty. If the characters are noticeably different from others in the setting just because of their PC status, that's sporty. If the players can plan out their characters' life-paths during char-gen in the expectation that path will be walked in full, that's sporty.

A more story arc where the challenge is in the plot, what I refer to as protagonist focused.

And while each edition or system leans toward one or the other* of these, each individual table still ends up making what they want out of it. It's just sometimes easier if the system in use isn't fighting you too hard.

So, gritty vs [sporty]. That's my take for the day.

* - or even toward both at once, in different aspects - 2e was bad for this as it tried to build a sporty game on a gritty chassis and just ended up kinda confused.

I would think that there are independent (or semi-independent) variables. I think you can have a somewhat gritty plot-based game and a less gritty challenge game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would agree.

It also encourages a certain meta on the players part, what Gygax refers to as "skilled play"; the whole 10' pole, bullseye lantern, steel mirror, bag of flour to detect invisible creature's thing, what I thinking as challenge play. This one spectrum based on challenging environments and can be very meta but slide toward:

A more story arc where the challenge is in the plot, what I refer to as protagonist focused.

I would think that there are independent (or semi-independent) variables. I think you can have a somewhat gritty plot-based game and a less gritty challenge game.

I agree. It's tricky though. Plot-based games are tough when PCs don't have plot armor.