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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I agree. I've always just eyeballed stuff like that, based on what I think makes sense in the world.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

It invalidates your progress by literally removing the progress.

Yes, I wouldn't play in such a game. If you like it, that's fine too. I wasn't saying otherwise. I was explaining why I believe a majority of gamers don't want those effects in their games. Not why those groups that do like them shouldn't use them (they absolutely should).

 

[overgeeked]

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).

I would suggest you have a rather skewed perception of FKR games then. In Meckel’s and Verdy’s original Free Kriegsspiel the “unwritten norms” were reality itself. They were playing a wargame (literally Kriegsspiel) to train officers how to conduct real-world battles. Everyone involved was an officer so knew soldiering, the general pace of troops, effective range of common weapons, the effects of a cavalry charge on light infantry, etc. So they didn’t need rules for that. Hence the free part, it was free of the earlier rigid rules that got in the way and made the game take longer to play than it would have to actually fight the battle. Free Kriegsspiel is where Wesley got the idea that sparked Arneson to create tabletop fantasy RPGs.

FKR games seek to emulate that earlier style by having the referee and players be knowledgable about the genre and world the game will take place in. The common refrain being “play worlds, not rules” because as anyone who’s played any game for any length of time can tell you, players more often than not devolve to gaming the system at every opportunity. So you remove the systems they try to game and play the world instead. Does it make sense for Superman to do X? Then he does. Does it make sense that Doc Savage does Y? Then he does. Does it make sense for Red Sonya to do Z? Then she does. You don’t need hundreds of pages of rules to tell you that. Just a bit of genre awareness and you’re set.

 

[gorice]

The more I think about it, the more I like @UngainlyTitan 's operational vs. protagonist schema.

For one thing, it has some explanatory power. Why does one of my players enjoy beating a tough enemy by 'cheating' with clever planning, while another is disappointed they didn't get a slap-down, drag-out fight? Both players are heavily invested in their characters and in role-play, but have differing agendas when it comes to expressing them.

I do think we have to be cognisant of the multiple 'axes' of difference in play here. Tactical play is suited to 'protagonist play', but really we're talking about tactical vs. operational as one axis, with protagonist vs. whatever (pawn?) as another. Also, keeping with the wargame analogy, I can imagine a scale that goes tactical <-> operational <-> strategic (= character building and long-term assets?).

 

[gorice]

I would suggest you have a rather skewed perception of FKR games then. In Meckel’s and Verdy’s original Free Kriegsspiel the “unwritten norms” were reality itself. They were playing a wargame (literally Kriegsspiel) to train officers how to conduct real-world battles. Everyone involved was an officer so knew soldiering, the general pace of troops, effective range of common weapons, the effects of a cavalry charge on light infantry, etc. So they didn’t need rules for that. Hence the free part, it was free of the earlier rigid rules that got in the way and made the game take longer to play than it would have to actually fight the battle. Free Kriegsspiel is where Wesley got the idea that sparked Arneson to create tabletop fantasy RPGs.

FKR games seek to emulate that earlier style by having the referee and players be knowledgable about the genre and world the game will take place in. The common refrain being “play worlds, not rules” because as anyone who’s played any game for any length of time can tell you, players more often than not devolve to gaming the system at every opportunity. So you remove the systems they try to game and play the world instead. Does it make sense for Superman to do X? Then he does. Does it make sense that Doc Savage does Y? Then he does. Does it make sense for Red Sonya to do Z? Then she does. You don’t need hundreds of pages of rules to tell you that. Just a bit of genre awareness and you’re set.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. The norms of FK were absolutely not 'reality itself', since (I believe) no-one has unmediated access to reality. As you say, the common experiences and culture of the Prussian officer corps created a common understanding of how things 'should' work (that is, an ideology). This did not exclude the possibility of error or disagreement (e.g. one question that vexed the Prussian senior officers throughout the 19th C. was under which conditions a bayonet charge was feasible or desirable, with ideological debates lasting right up until the Great War).

For FKR, I'm not even sure that playing the world (i.e. a simulation) and playing the genre (i.e. a set of narrative conventions) are even the same thing. For genre, there is at least some common ground; but for simulation, the players and the referee simply don't have the kind of strong, shared ideology that the Prussian officer corps would have had, unless it they have been playing together for a long time and have developed norms. This is why I say FKR can only mean playing the GM or playing by unwritten rules. Reality has no place here.

 

[overgeeked]

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

You’re free to do so, but you’re wrong. We have literal historical documentation of what people were doing and why, how it worked, and the impact Kriegsspiel had on officer training. Hint: it was so effective that militaries still play wargames today.

The norms of FK were absolutely not 'reality itself', since (I believe) no-one has unmediated access to reality.

Let’s not get into philosophical tangents. I have no desire to dust off my philo 101 coursework this early in the morning.

As you say, the common experiences and culture of the Prussian officer corps created a common understanding of how things 'should' work (that is, an ideology).

No. They had decades of experience of how things actually played out from real-world combat experience and they used that to inform their Kriegsspiel.

This did not exclude the possibility of error or disagreement (e.g. one question that vexed the Prussian senior officers throughout the 19th C. was under which conditions a bayonet charge was feasible or desirable, with ideological debates lasting right up until the Great War).

And as they collected data from actual combat experience, their thoughts changed. You seemed to think this was entirely academic and not informed by lived combat experience. You’re wrong.

For FKR, I'm not even sure that playing the world (i.e. a simulation) and playing the genre (i.e. a set of narrative conventions) are even the same thing.

No, they’re not. If you’re playing for historical accuracy, genre doesn’t enter into it, unless you think reality is a genre (that is what realism hopes to ape, after all). If you’re playing for genre, say superheroes, reality doesn’t enter into it.

For genre, there is at least some common ground; but for simulation, the players and the referee simply don't have the kind of strong, shared ideology that the Prussian officer corps would have had, unless it they have been playing together for a long time and have developed norms.

We have our shared reality to draw on. We all know what happens if you step off the curb in front of a bus. No need for rules dictating the same. And if there’s serious doubt (rather than just philosophical nonsense), then that’s what dice are for.

This is why I say FKR can only mean playing the GM or playing by unwritten rules. Reality has no place here.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand FKR. I’d suggest actually playing a game in that style sometime, or try listening to those who have.

 

[tetrasodium]

It is a term I have advocated in this thread to look at play (in this post) where the party are the main characters in a story enabled by as little as having enough hit point to reduce risk of sudden death due to random chance. It enables any kind of story play that a group wants to drift D&D towards (starting with Trad story play - see the Hickman revolution) as a contrast to the gritty resource management type game of earlier D&D (like Gygaxian "skilled play")

The rules themselves are not doing anything to carry the load of making the game work with that though. If d&d were some kind of asymmetrical wargame like a tabletop version the video game Evolve where only combat matters that might make sense, but d&d needs the noncombat stuff stitching together combat to feel like d&d.

Spoiler: Deconstruction of Evolve's failure

Some of those criticisms map pretty well to GM facing 5e problems too. The big difference is that 5e has a GM tasked with shouldering solutions for them so players don't see the holes or find themselves burdened with the work of filling them.

death has always been a revolving door in d&d with spells like raise dead & such, it didn't need Logan/Wayde Wilson mutant healing factor levels of durability on top of those methods of returning & the portable characters that have been getting discussed by @overgeeked & others over the last page or two.

Edit: It certainly didn't need to free players from any needs for magic items gold & so on from the gm either

 

[S'mon]

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

I think hopeless last stands can be dramatically interesting, and make for great fiction, stories and songs...


I've seen this at the end of a campaign (it ended a lot like Serbia vs Imperial Germany). ofc most players aren't keen on losing their PCs, even in an heroic last stand.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It invalidates your progress by literally removing the progress.

Yes, I wouldn't play in such a game. If you like it, that's fine too. I wasn't saying otherwise. I was explaining why I believe a majority of gamers don't want those effects in their games. Not why those groups that do like them shouldn't use them (they absolutely should).

I am way too conflicted on this... I hate the level drain effect, BUT i like the caution the fear of it had. I can throw whights that 'perm hp until SR' damage all day and not I nor any of my players are that worried.

 

[gorice]

You’re free to do so, but you’re wrong. We have literal historical documentation of what people were doing and why, how it worked, and the impact Kriegsspiel had on officer training. Hint: it was so effective that militaries still play wargames today.

Let’s not get into philosophical tangents. I have no desire to dust off my philo 101 coursework this early in the morning.

No. They had decades of experience of how things actually played out from real-world combat experience and they used that to inform their Kriegsspiel.

And as they collected data from actual combat experience, their thoughts changed. You seemed to think this was entirely academic and not informed by lived combat experience. You’re wrong.

No, they’re not. If you’re playing for historical accuracy, genre doesn’t enter into it, unless you think reality is a genre (that is what realism hopes to ape, after all). If you’re playing for genre, say superheroes, reality doesn’t enter into it.

We have our shared reality to draw on. We all know what happens if you step off the curb in front of a bus. No need for rules dictating the same. And if there’s serious doubt (rather than just philosophical nonsense), then that’s what dice are for.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand FKR. I’d suggest actually playing a game in that style sometime, or try listening to those who have.

Let me clarify something, because I think we have a misunderstanding. When I say that the Prussian officer corps had 'norms' or an 'ideology', I'm not saying that their ideas were useless and disconnected from reality. I am saying that their ideas were necessarily a form of (possibly false) knowledge. They bayonet charge example was hotly disputed right up into WW1, and only resolved after bitter experience. Wargaming is necessarily a mediated (and therefore 'false') experience; this doesn't mean it can't have any instructional value.

Unlike the Prussian officers, RPG nerds don't have a strong a common ideology (an idea about how things are) when it comes to the reality of their shared game world. The only way to create that is through lots of play, or by deferring to an authority (a rule, or the GM). I've certainly played and run enough GM-heavy games to know what this is like. Even for something as seemingly obvious as being hit by a bus, what does that look like? Some people survive such accidents, some do not.

As for philosophy: if I had a dollar for every time a discussion of RPGs became a discussion of epistemology, I'd have two dollars. Which isn't much, but it's weird that it happened twice.

I think hopeless last stands can be dramatically interesting, and make for great fiction, stories and songs...


I've seen this at the end of a campaign (it ended a lot like Serbia vs Imperial Germany). ofc most players aren't keen on losing their PCs, even in an heroic last stand.

I agree! As do a lot of historical wargamers. People who want a 'fair' tactical game they can win, or who want to feel like protagonists, probably don't.