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

[FrogReaver]

Considering I dislike the fundamental argument in its entirety--it is both reductive and unhelpful, insulting and muddling--the fact that they (and you) seem to think that 5e fails to go either way would in fact be excellent reason to ditch the framework entirely.

However, to make this more than just a threadcrap, I will try to take the fundamental premise seriously, at least for a bit. I grant that 5e combat isn't either of these things (albeit for reasons other than what the video creators probably intended.) It's also not spectacle, because spectacle IS the point of 4e combats; that's why literally everyone, fans and haters alike, refers to them as "set-piece" battles. It's not tactics nor strategy, because 5e has flattened the tactical side of things to almost nothing, and flattened the spectrum of items and interactions that could produce strategic advantage. It's further not combat-as-puzzle, nor combat-as-performance because so many fights are either grinds against piles of squishy nobody mooks, or single fat-sack-of-HP bosses against which there's little of interest to do other than Moar Damage.

Perhaps Combat as Obstacle? It's a thing to get past. It's a weirdly hyper-focused "thing to get past," since 5e's rules for anything that isn't combat are either the spell list, or barely enough to fill a single chapter. But...I'm honestly not sure what else to call it.

And, as I said, that's why I think this is excellent evidence that the "Combat-as-X" model is fundamentally flawed to an extent that it should simply be abandoned. It doesn't actually give information about the game. It basically only says things about the speaker. It's a jersey color, a political party slogan, and nothing more. It may be aspiring to something more and better, it may be trying to say something productive and meaningful about game design, user experience, etc. But it genuinely fails to actually DO that. All it does, in the vast majority of cases, is tell other people which team's cheerios you believe deserve to be pissed in.

I've never once been in a D&D game where the DM stopped a player and said - 'you can't do that, it is going to unbalance the encounter'. I have on occasion seen the DM make a bad ruling and prevented something from working that probably should have had a chance of success, but that's not bad GMing or indicative of some underlying game philosophy... i think we've all gotten that call wrong at times.

I think in some sense we all play combat as sport. The PC's are supposed to win. The only question is what expectations around getting to the 'supposed' to win positioning are held. Does the GM generally place combats in front of the PC's that are balanced or do the PC's need to navigate the world to enable those 'supposed to win' combats - but even in this case the DM is still setting the world up such that the PC's can reliably get to 'supposed to win' combats.

I guess I'm saying I agree, but just elaborating on it a bit differently.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd argue combat as war is the bigger illusion.

I'm all for players trying to gain advantages in whatever way they can. But the simple fact is if there isn't a thumb on the scale then eventually intelligent enemies should proceed to enact their own combat as war on the players and that is going to feel exceedingly unfair to the players, and ultimately culminate in PC deaths/TPKs. Thus, what combat as war boils down to is letting the players get whatever advantages they can but not letting team monster do the same.

Excellent point, one I had not considered. "Combat as War," as traditionally presented, only considers the players as waging war, with the monsters doing barely more than basic self-preservation. When paired with my above criticism of "Combat as Sport," with how the "two equal-ish teams" analogy demonstrably breaks down in all but occasional instances, one has to wonder: what is this analysis achieving? Its alleged "war" prong holds no water because it is blatantly artificial, allowing only one side to behave as though the conflict is like actual warfare.

I've never once been in a D&D game where the DM stopped a player and said - 'you can't do that, it is going to unbalance the encounter'. I have on occasion seen the DM make a bad ruling and prevented something from working that probably should have had a chance of success, but that's not bad GMing or indicative of some underlying game philosophy... i think we've all gotten that call wrong at times.

I think in some sense we all play combat as sport. The PC's are supposed to win. The only question is what expectations around getting to the 'supposed' to win positioning are held. Does the GM generally place combats in front of the PC's that are balanced or do the PC's need to navigate the world to enable those 'supposed to win' combats - but even in this case the DM is still setting the world up such that the PC's can reliably get to 'supposed to win' combats.

I guess I'm saying I agree, but just elaborating on it a bit differently.

Again, I don't really think people actually do "Combat as Sport" either--because "sport," as pointed out by @overgeeked, implies teams of roughly equal capacity with the genuine expectation that the bout could go either way. Seeing a professional boxer trounce a teenager isn't sport; seeing a Minor League Baseball team go up against a Major League team would be dull. And yet the expectation in TTRPGs is not only that the players will go up against their opposition, but that they will succeed pretty handily almost all of the time. Abandoning one's goal completely is uncommon; losing party members is unusual; whole TPKs are somewhat rare. This simply doesn't reflect the described nature of "Combat as Sport"--it isn't two equal-ish teams going at it, that's not the kind of situation intended.

Instead, I think most people expect some amount of each of these: Spectacle, Puzzle, Performance, Worldbuilding.

Combat-as-Spectacle is, I hope, relatively obvious. There's a reason almost everyone (detractor and booster alike) refers to 4e as having "set-piece" combats. A Spectacle is something to be looked upon (very literally), something marveled at and enjoyed purely for that benefit. Spectacle design only cares about balance instrumentally, to provide a reasonable (within probabilistic limits) certainty that a particular sequence of events will play out (e.g., the boss will survive at least 3 rounds, and thus should be almost certainly able to pull off its flashy, impressive two-round combo action.)

Combat-as-Puzzle welcomes a specific kind of balance: consistency and predictability. A puzzle requires that there be an answer, as opposed to a game where there are many valid approaches to the win-state. And we all know that "puzzle monsters" have been around for ages--even back in the beginning. There are various ways to design a "puzzle," with each edition having its own ideas of how that should be done. Environmental effects, bringing the right damage types, talking to the right people first, doing one's own research, etc. etc.

Combat-as-Performance can be understood in two ways, either "performance" as a form of roleplay (e.g. "my Wizard is a cryomancer, all of his offensive spells do cold damage" or players who actually write up nasty comments for their Bard to use with vicious mockery), or "performance" as a metric of success (e.g. optimization, tournament modules, Tucker's Kobolds, etc.--the "can you step up to the plate and prove how badass you are?" perspective, performance evaluation.) Both are valid and, as before, found in essentially every edition of D&D, with different people having different perspectives. I've known old-school players who found anything more flowery than "I attack" to be the most tedious, idiotic faffery they've ever gritted their teeth to endure, and new-school players who couldn't care less about solving puzzles if the solution would require them to act OOC.

Combat-as-Worldbuilding is where the verisimilitudinists and storygamers hang out. Whether it be making a world that is self-consistent and which engages in environmental storytelling, or a world that communicates the intended theme and tone and supports the kinds of stories the players want to tell, you can absolutely do a TON of worldbuilding through what combats occur and who fights in them. Not much more to say than that--because, again, these things have been present from the beginning and have remained so, just to varying degrees and with subtle differences of emphasis.

But...in a very real sense, these things are just goals that all of D&D, combat and non-combat, supports and welcomes. Which makes the "Combat-as" part seem...pretty unnecessary. Just talk about how combat can support the interests of Spectacle or interesting Puzzles or enabling Performances or demonstrating/revealing Worldbuilding etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

Combat as filler. 5e combat never rises above cjtscene training mintage but takes so many combats (and probably sessions) to meet the system's expectations that none of the cut scenes are ever me. Or able enough for anyone to really wonder about when they splash by on the eeel

 

[Lanefan]

Excellent point, one I had not considered. "Combat as War," as traditionally presented, only considers the players as waging war, with the monsters doing barely more than basic self-preservation.

I both run it and play it as war; and if I'm running intelligent monsters I do my best to have them wage war on the PCs should it come to that. And if the PCs don't look to their own self-preservation then I hope their wills are up to date.

Again, I don't really think people actually do "Combat as Sport" either--because "sport," as pointed out by @overgeeked, implies teams of roughly equal capacity with the genuine expectation that the bout could go either way. Seeing a professional boxer trounce a teenager isn't sport; seeing a Minor League Baseball team go up against a Major League team would be dull. And yet the expectation in TTRPGs is not only that the players will go up against their opposition, but that they will succeed pretty handily almost all of the time. Abandoning one's goal completely is uncommon; losing party members is unusual; whole TPKs are somewhat rare. This simply doesn't reflect the described nature of "Combat as Sport"--it isn't two equal-ish teams going at it, that's not the kind of situation intended.

You're defining "sport" a bit differently than I.

Sport in this milieu has nothing to do with equality between opposing sides but instead has more to do with rules of engagement, playing fair (in-character) with the opposition, and from the PCs' side, rarely if ever getting seriously hurt or killed. Combat-as-sport also eschews many fog-of-war effects or limitations, instead (at the meta-level) allowing players to plan their tactics as they go along even if, say, they can't hear each other.

Instead, I think most people expect some amount of each of these: Spectacle, Puzzle, Performance, Worldbuilding.

Combat-as-Spectacle [...]

Combat-as-Puzzle welcomes a specific kind of balance: consistency and predictability. A puzzle requires that there be an answer, as opposed to a game where there are many valid approaches to the win-state. And we all know that "puzzle monsters" have been around for ages--even back in the beginning. There are various ways to design a "puzzle," with each edition having its own ideas of how that should be done. Environmental effects, bringing the right damage types, talking to the right people first, doing one's own research, etc. etc.

This is an interesting one. Often, the "puzzle" piece comes before the actual combat, during the info-gathering stage. Once the weapons come out, the combat itself breaks down to being either war or sport depending how it's run. See below.

Combat-as-Performance [...]

Combat-as-Worldbuilding [...]

Both of these are again possibly subsets within each of the larger sport and war circles.

But...in a very real sense, these things are just goals that all of D&D, combat and non-combat, supports and welcomes. Which makes the "Combat-as" part seem...pretty unnecessary. Just talk about how combat can support the interests of Spectacle or interesting Puzzles or enabling Performances or demonstrating/revealing Worldbuilding etc.

Thing is, any of these can be either sport or war depending how they're run and, to some extent, in what edition or system.

If combat is seen as the least desirable option because Bad Things* can happen to characters at any time once engaged, and-or recovery of resources used is difficult, that's war. The opponents are out to kill you dead, and can, and have the means to do so No punches are pulled.

If combat is seen as the first (and-or only) option because the characters have little if any fear of Bad Things* happening, and-or recovery of resources used is easy, that's sport. The opponents really don't have the means of killing you dead unless you're egregiously stupid or horrendously unlucky, and even then the DM might pull his punches to keep PCs alive.

0e-1e lean toward the war model. 5e leans hard toward the sport model.

* - such as death, level loss, wealth loss, limb loss, capture, major aging, and other big-time detrimental effects.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sport in this milieu has nothing to do with equality between opposing sides but instead has more to do with rules of engagement, playing fair (in-character) with the opposition, and from the PCs' side, rarely if ever getting seriously hurt or killed. Combat-as-sport also eschews many fog-of-war effects or limitations, instead (at the meta-level) allowing players to plan their tactics as they go along even if, say, they can't hear each other.

Where do you get this idea from? I genuinely don't understand what part of the rules involves "playing fair" in so-called "Combat-as-Sport" games. Yes, there is an expectation that combat will happen. None of that involves being in any way nice or cutting slack or any of the other things that might be associated with a "play fair" attitude. Unless by "playing fair" you mean something really, really different from what I understand the term to mean!

And, like I said, you would seem to be rather an outlier. Do you truly have your players' opponents sneak up on them while they're sleeping and garrote them, flood the rooms they're exploring, and otherwise do things beneath the players' notice which result in instant and unavoidable death? Because I find that very unlikely, and yet these things are precisely what people cite as demonstrations of players engaging in "Combat as War." And if you do do this, how on earth do you keep players for longer than a few months? Because the NPCs only need to get one solid opening for this to result in a TPK. Even if the players only leave themselves vulnerable one time in twenty, you only need 14 combats to have a greater than 50% chance (51.23%, approximately) of instant, unavoidable death....and unless you have less than an average of one combat a week, you're gonna hit that line in about three months.

 

[Lanefan]

Where do you get this idea from? I genuinely don't understand what part of the rules involves "playing fair" in so-called "Combat-as-Sport" games. Yes, there is an expectation that combat will happen. None of that involves being in any way nice or cutting slack or any of the other things that might be associated with a "play fair" attitude. Unless by "playing fair" you mean something really, really different from what I understand the term to mean!

And, like I said, you would seem to be rather an outlier. Do you truly have your players' opponents sneak up on them while they're sleeping and garrote them,

I've tried, now and then, but they're usually wise enough in-character to keep a watch if they've any reason to think anything's amiss; which can include not having accounted for every foe recently met.

flood the rooms they're exploring, and otherwise do things beneath the players' notice which result in instant and unavoidable death?

It's a long time since I've used a flood trap. I should bust that one out again sometime.

Instant death can and does happen sometimes. It's nearly always avoidable somehow, though, even if in rare cases that "somehow" means not ever going into that place to begin with. They almost always have access to various divination or futurecastng magics even at low level that can, if used wisely, warn them if something dangerous lies ahead. But if they just face-charge everything then IMO they're kind of asking for it; and sometimes bad luck is simply bad luck in any event.

Because I find that very unlikely, and yet these things are precisely what people cite as demonstrations of players engaging in "Combat as War." And if you do do this, how on earth do you keep players for longer than a few months? Because the NPCs only need to get one solid opening for this to result in a TPK. Even if the players only leave themselves vulnerable one time in twenty, you only need 14 combats to have a greater than 50% chance (51.23%, approximately) of instant, unavoidable death....and unless you have less than an average of one combat a week, you're gonna hit that line in about three months.

A few things to note here.

Yes, characters die all the time, particularly at low levels. The key thing is, with only the rarest of exceptions (one in 38 years) they don't all die at once. And if there's even one survivor, both the party and the story can continue.

So if there's a couple of significant combats per session, yes, within a few sessions a character will probably drop. What happens next is where I think the difference lies between my reality and your theory: when someone dies most parties IME will stop if they can, turn around, go back to town, and either revive the fallen or - if not possible - try to recruit a replacement, or two, or three. They don't just press on unless they've absolutely no other option; and my only-ever TPK came in a situation where they in fact had no other option (one of those published modules where the party is stuck off-plane and can't get back until they finish the adventure), and had to keep going even though they were losing characters fast.

Your numbers above seem to assume they're pressing on until they all die.

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering I dislike the fundamental argument in its entirety--it is both reductive and unhelpful, insulting and muddling--the fact that they (and you) seem to think that 5e fails to go either way would in fact be excellent reason to ditch the framework entirely.

However, to make this more than just a threadcrap, I will try to take the fundamental premise seriously, at least for a bit. I grant that 5e combat isn't either of these things (albeit for reasons other than what the video creators probably intended.) It's also not spectacle, because spectacle IS the point of 4e combats; that's why literally everyone, fans and haters alike, refers to them as "set-piece" battles. It's not tactics nor strategy, because 5e has flattened the tactical side of things to almost nothing, and flattened the spectrum of items and interactions that could produce strategic advantage. It's further not combat-as-puzzle, nor combat-as-performance because so many fights are either grinds against piles of squishy nobody mooks, or single fat-sack-of-HP bosses against which there's little of interest to do other than Moar Damage.

Perhaps Combat as Obstacle? It's a thing to get past. It's a weirdly hyper-focused "thing to get past," since 5e's rules for anything that isn't combat are either the spell list, or barely enough to fill a single chapter. But...I'm honestly not sure what else to call it.

And, as I said, that's why I think this is excellent evidence that the "Combat-as-X" model is fundamentally flawed to an extent that it should simply be abandoned. It doesn't actually give information about the game. It basically only says things about the speaker. It's a jersey color, a political party slogan, and nothing more. It may be aspiring to something more and better, it may be trying to say something productive and meaningful about game design, user experience, etc. But it genuinely fails to actually DO that. All it does, in the vast majority of cases, is tell other people which team's cheerios you believe deserve to be pissed in.

I wouldn’t say “combat as obstacle” exactly, but rather, “combat as a means of overcoming an obstacle,” the obstacle being the opposing side. I don’t think that’s unique to 5e though. I think that’s kinda what all D&D combat is, save maybe 4e, where “combat as spectacle” does seem quite fitting.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In my experience combat is story. You take turns around the table giving each character cool things to do. There is a obstacle that must be overcome. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. But even the way the dice roll is a little story:

"I swing my greatsword..."

(Rolls a d20)

"And hit!"

That's a little story!

 

[Aldarc]

So, looking at 5E combat, it seems to be…neither. The default assumption clearly is not that you’ll treat combat as war as you would with an old-school game, but it’s also clearly not really combat as sport. Sure, the PCs get to show off their cool stuff, but most official monsters are famously lackluster, and most combats are in no way contests between two roughly equal sides.

Combat as Professional Wrestling? Or Combat as Fashion Show?

 

[Quickleaf]

Where I've seen 5e's design succeed the most (when it comes to combat) is "Combat as Puzzle."

Example: You step on a tendril, and suddenly that seemingly benign brownish yellow flower writhes to life above the shelf mushroom staircase you're ascending, showering you with yellow spores. On the forest floor below, the dozens of catatonic sallow skinned zombies that you'd previously slipped past unmolested suddenly snap to awareness, lurching towards the base of the mushroom stairs.

Default 5e usually isn't scary after 1st level, but the DM can bring enough threat to make it scary. Often times, bringing that threat, however, make combat take longer. Well, the longer time opens up more opportunities to do cool stuff. But what's the point of that cool stuff? Is it just showing off your powers, or is it applying that power towards something?

That's when the "Combat as Puzzle" shines – even if you don't have control over all the circumstances leading up to the combat, if you can figure out the weak point / trick in the combat, then it goes much faster and plays out as if you'd done the recon/prep in an OSR game. And while you're figuring it out, you get to do cool stuff & hopefully you'll figure out how to apply one of those cool powers to solve the puzzle.