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

[Micah Sweet]

Sure they are. They're actively doing something hostile to the game premise, knowing it will upset the DM. You've had absolutely no problem calling that out when it comes to things like wanting to play a race that isn't present in a particular game world. How is this any different?


Tell me why a man would lay down his life for his friend.


Since when are those referees of wars?

That's victors punishing bad behavior from one or more combatants. I'm not seeing a referee here; there's no third party who calls the shots.


And yet it is, explicitly, officially, a sport. Every resource available to me agrees it is a sport--a "combat sport," to be clear, but a sport nonetheless. What does that say, then, that you consider it to be "Combat as War" despite literally being a sport?


And yet WWE isn't even a sport to begin with! Again, what does that say about this alleged model, when a thing that explicitly is a sport is "combat as war," and something you're claiming is a sport isn't even a sport at all?

Also, I categorically reject your claim that "everything is predetermined." Others have already given you examples of the kinds of stakes one can have other than always defaulting to character death all the time. It is, in fact, exactly this dismissive and hostile "oh everything is predetermined the way you do things" that I am so frustrated by. Everything is NOT pre-determined. In fact, in many cases, things are less pre-determined than they would be if death were always hiding in the wings.

I agree that there are many other stakes beyond death. But to me, in D&D if death is off the table none of those other stakes mean anything, because you've just destroyed the verisimilitude of the setting and ruined my immersion.

 

[overgeeked]

So you're saying that the same exact character, same sheet, same everything, is dead at one table but they take him to another table and he's alive? Or do you mean that they make a similar character with the same name and personality, and play them at different tables?

Start with the same character built by the player. Use them in multiple games. They will develop “differently” based on how each game actually plays out. But that’s down to story, magic item, and whether they live or die. Also, when the character dies in any given game, you can simply run the same character built to whatever level they should be at for the game. Any gold or items they had are gone. But only the referee is stopping you from running essentially identical characters (mechanically, personality, and name).

That's your experience, but it hasn't been mine. I already said that for a group like that you arguably need level drain (et al) because if all the group cares about is levels and treasure, then that's the only setbacks they can face. That's seems pretty easy to solve with a conversation where you let them know that for this new campaign there will be nasty challenges in store for them, such as level drain.

Then we agree. Those things all have their place.

If they protest against that, then maybe they aren't a good fit for you. You could seek out a different group that's better aligned with your interests, or have one of the players run a campaign (sitting in the DMs chair has a way of giving players a sense of perspective, IME).

Funnily enough, it’s sitting in the referees chair that gave me this perspective. I wish more players would give it a go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, when this happens, do you note what the difference was?

Perhaps in the former case you couldn't roll above a 5? Perhaps in the latter case you rolled half a dozen crits in the same encounter?

Maybe I'm confusing you with a different poster, but weren't you the one who just claimed to have 38 years of experience? No offense, but this post reads like weaponized incompetence on your part. Like in those 38 years you couldn't figure out how to estimate the difficulty of an encounter. Frankly, I find that a little hard to believe.

Yes, RNG is always a factor. I prefer it that way. I would think, given your stated preferences, that you would prefer it that way too. However, as DMs with some experience, it's not that difficult to get a feel for how challenging an encounter will be on average.

If the elder dragon rolls nothing but 1s and the players roll nothing but 20s then they may steamroll it. And if the players roll nothing but 1s and the lone kobold rolls nothing but 20s it may steamroll them. (Obviously abilities that are save for half change this a bit, but let's leave those aside for the sake of simplicity.) However, we can pretty safely assume that for a 4th level party the elder dragon will most likely result in a TPK if engaged directly, whereas the kobold will probably pose a trivial encounter.

After we've played a session or three, we can probably start to get a feel as to how the party is performing relative to the encounter building guidelines. If they're over performing we can increase the challenge a bit (this doesn't even have to be additional creatures; it might simply be something like terrain that favors the monsters). If they're under performing, we can reduce the challenge.

Maybe I'm off base and the guys I game with and I are gaming geniuses who managed to crack a code that no one else has managed. I strongly doubt it though. I'm pretty sure that any DM with a modicum of experience under their belt can manage the same. For those DMs who aren't experienced enough, setting the guidelines on the easier end of the scale is a good idea, because they can gradually learn to get a feel for the system without accidentally slaughtering their parties.

I think the point here is that @Lanefan is not interested in adjusting the threat to the party. You set something up in the world, and when the PCs encounter it, you don't change but rather let the dice fall where they may. I didn't read anything in their post that suggested they didn't like the potential swingyness and were looking for advice.

 

[gorice]

See, this is where we get into another of the faults of the CaW/CaS concept. What does it mean for the DM to be "sporting"? The DM is the referee--that's something 99% of old-school players drill on extremely hard when the topic comes up. Isn't "referee" a sport concept? Wars don't have refs! Further, what is "sporting" conduct in one space may be totally "unsporting" conduct in another; MMA fights permit numerous actions that would be verboten in boxing, for example. If the players come in explicitly expecting things of this nature, might it not be unsporting to take away the experience they signed up for?

To be fair, Kriegspiel had a referee, as do some other wargames. What these have in common with sports is that the rules (or at least the norms of behaviour and outcome) are known to everyone. Like any other game.

(As an aside, this is why I'm very skeptical of the idea of 'FKR' RPGs; either you're playing with a set of unwritten norms, or you're playing the GM; but in no sense are you playing a 'free' game).

Further, such fights--where the victor is essentially already known in advance, whether it be the PCs or the creatures--are often quite dull tactically, hence why tactics-heavy games like 4e tend to recommend glossing over the "wrap up" phase of a fight (where it's clear the enemies can no longer deal meaningful harm to the party). With an effect that pulls toward strategic and another that pulls away from tactical, I think we can safely say this situation, with what little information you've shared, sounds pretty clearly pragmatic and strategic.

This is a hugely important point that extends beyond RPGs. Setting up all your troops nicely and then having them decimated by pre-planned enemy artillery prior to being completely overrun by an unstoppable mass of enemy tanks isn't much fun, but it is a good depiction of good operational play, viewed from the tactical level. Tactical wargames have always struggled with this problem -- real war is frequently grossly asymmetrical on the small scale. The kinds of scenarios you see in games like Warhammer are artificial exercises, completely detached from any plausible operational or strategic narrative.

 

[overgeeked]

I think the point here is that @Lanefan is not interested in adjusting the threat to the party. You set something up in the world, and when the PCs encounter it, you don't change but rather let the dice fall where they may. I didn't read anything in their post that suggested they didn't like the potential swingyness and were looking for advice.

I think that’s one of the big divides. Combat as War generally goes with “this is the world, it is hostile, and not tailored to suit you, tread with caution” whereas with Combat as Sport generally goes with “the world is specifically tailored to exactly suit you and your party, go wherever you want because everything automatically adjusts to be a fun on-level challenge.”

In that sense CaS is exhausting. So much easier to do CaW. You wander into an ancient dragon’s lair at 1st level and decide to attack it, well, that’s on you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

See, this opinion is predicated on the idea that your PC is so special that losing their abilities makes the entire experience retroactively pointless. I don't agree. To me, you do the best you can with your PC, and if bad things happen to them, you deal with it or you retire the PC and move on with a new one. In my old group, players would sometimes just get tired of their PCs and retire them or let them die so they could try something new. Making it to the end of a campaign with the same PC was a gift from the dice gods and/or a reward for skilled play, not an assumption, and losing your super-powers in no way invalidates the emergent story from before. If you don't want to try and come back from it, just make a new PC.

I know other people feel differently, but we all have our preferences.

Making it to the end of a campaign with a character isn't an assumption that can be made in the games I play in either. Of the campaigns I've made it to the end of in the past 10+ years, there are only two character of mine that I can recall who made it all the way. That's out of a lot of campaigns.

It's not about losing your "super powers" but rather about losing your superpowers in a way that is unfun and invalidates the progression you've made. You can literally lose dozens (even hundreds) of gameplay hours of XP in a single unlucky round of combat.

If you like level drain and your group is on board, go for it. Just don't try to force it on me or try to claim that it's for my own good, because that's nonsense.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Start with the same character built by the player. Use them in multiple games. They will develop “differently” based on how each game actually plays out. But that’s down to story, magic item, and whether they live or die. Also, when the character dies in any given game, you can simply run the same character built to whatever level they should be at for the game. Any gold or items they had are gone. But only the referee is stopping you from running essentially identical characters (mechanically, personality, and name).

Then we agree. Those things all have their place.

Funnily enough, it’s sitting in the referees chair that gave me this perspective. I wish more players would give it a go.

Those characters are the same in the same sense that twins are the same. In other words, they may be indistinguishable to some people, but fundamentally they're not the same. If twin A dies, twin B living doesn't mean that twin A is still alive. Twin A is dead, obviously.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Making it to the end of a campaign with a character isn't an assumption that can be made in the games I play in either. Of the campaigns I've made it to the end of in the past 10+ years, there are only two character of mine that I can recall who made it all the way. That's out of a lot of campaigns.

It's not about losing your "super powers" but rather about losing your superpowers in a way that is unfun and invalidates the progression you've made. You can literally lose dozens (even hundreds) of gameplay hours of XP in a single unlucky round of combat.

If you like level drain and your group is on board, go for it. Just don't try to force it on me or try to claim that it's for my own good, because that's nonsense.

I just don't understand how being level drained invalidates anything; the campaign to that point all still happened, and then your PC fell into a nest of weights.

Now, if all you're saying is you don't like it, that's fine. Just don't play in games where that sort of thing is featured.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those characters are the same in the same sense that twins are the same. In other words, they may be indistinguishable to some people, but fundamentally they're not the same. If twin A dies, twin B living doesn't mean that twin A is still alive. Twin A is dead, obviously.

I would say more like clones than twins. Clones start at the same point. Twins develop differently from birth, but likely have similar experiences.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the point here is that @Lanefan is not interested in adjusting the threat to the party. You set something up in the world, and when the PCs encounter it, you don't change but rather let the dice fall where they may. I didn't read anything in their post that suggested they didn't like the potential swingyness and were looking for advice.

IDK, he was the one who responded to me saying that sometimes 6 orcs are a breeze for his party and sometimes 6 orcs are a near TPK. I was responding to that.

I see nothing wrong with a sandbox style game, but concepts like too easy or hard make even less sense in that environment. As you say, it is what it is. If a high level party opts to raid kobold warrens more suited to a low level party, that's their choice. Arguably, it shouldn't matter what the encounter building guidelines look like (easy or hard) in this style of campaign because they're most likely going to be ignored anyway.