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

[Micah Sweet]

Not really, it just becomes a plot based game about the party's plot or the world's plot rather than any individual PC's plot. Look at Glenn & Eugene from The Walking Dead or nearly everyone in Game of Thrones. Both were shows that had pretty extensive plots & building stories but they still had pretty seriuous death tolls of main characters.

Oh sure, you can definitely do it. It does steer pretty hard away from the zeitgeist though, which is why I described it as "tricky".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It was D&D 3.5. The DM was experienced but it was his first time running 3rd and he didn't have a good feel for it. He wasn't explicitly trying to kill us, just challenge us, but he had a habit of overestimating what we could actually handle. But, there was basically an unspoken gentlemen's agreement that we would approach combats "heroically". In truth, many times we didn't have much of an option to do otherwise (we could have tried to run, but that would have meant dying tired, since monsters could typically outpace us). As a result, we averaged about 1-2 deaths per session (I think the campaign ran roughly 140 hours or so, total). By the end, I'm pretty sure no one in the party had even met a PC who had met a PC who'd known a member of the original party.

Oh! Wow, not at all sure what to do with that data-point. But it does speak to me that there is a social contract or meta element to this discussion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Oh! Wow, not at all sure what to do with that data-point. But it does speak to me that there is a social contract or meta element to this discussion.

Yeah, I think that, particularly with the heroic vs pragmatic axis, it's often a social contract. Ideally it's how everyone wants to play.

But sometimes it isn't, which is why you sometimes hear DMs who want to run pragmatic oriented games give the advice, "Just keep killing the characters until the players learn".

Or how you'll hear a heroic oriented DM complain angrily about how the PCs ruined the epic showdown by putting a landmine under the BBEG'S private toilet.

Personally, I'm at a point in my life where I'm in the laid-back camp. However the players want to take out the BBEG, whether epic showdown or underhanded tricks, makes no difference to me (as long as they can pull it off). They can both be a lot of fun.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, I think that, particularly with the heroic vs pragmatic axis, it's often a social contract. Ideally it's how everyone wants to play.

But sometimes it isn't, which is why you sometimes hear DMs who want to run pragmatic oriented games give the advice, "Just keep killing the characters until the players learn".

Or how you'll hear a heroic oriented DM complain angrily about how the PCs ruined the epic showdown by putting a landmine under the BBEG'S private toilet.

Personally, I'm at a point in my life where I'm in the laid-back camp. However the players want to take out the BBEG, whether epic showdown or underhanded tricks, makes no difference to me (as long as they can pull it off). They can both be a lot of fun.

Thanks, this has been productive.

 

[payn]

Yeah, I think that, particularly with the heroic vs pragmatic axis, it's often a social contract. Ideally it's how everyone wants to play.

But sometimes it isn't, which is why you sometimes hear DMs who want to run pragmatic oriented games give the advice, "Just keep killing the characters until the players learn".

Or how you'll hear a heroic oriented DM complain angrily about how the PCs ruined the epic showdown by putting a landmine under the BBEG'S private toilet.

Personally, I'm at a point in my life where I'm in the laid-back camp. However the players want to take out the BBEG, whether epic showdown or underhanded tricks, makes no difference to me (as long as they can pull it off). They can both be a lot of fun.

One thing a lot of folks I think assume is that gamers actually know these concepts. I believe a lot of gamers can not articulate in such terms as these. Not saying they don't understand it, but that they have never sat down and thought about it. Which is why you get a lot of mismatches. Just recently been getting into online games and many GMs are poor at communicating their intents. A lot of folks dont care they just want to game. They dont realize until its underway that they dont like it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One thing a lot of folks I think assume is that gamers actually know these concepts. I believe a lot of gamers can not articulate in such terms as these. Not saying they don't understand it, but that they have never sat down and thought about it. Which is why you get a lot of mismatches. Just recently been getting into online games and many GMs are poor at communicating their intents. A lot of folks dont care they just want to game. They dont realize until its underway that they dont like it.

Which is why I think this discussion is of value. As is attempting to label the underlying concepts in a way that facilitates analysis and further discussion.

 

[payn]

Which is why I think this discussion is of value. As is attempting to label the underlying concepts in a way that facilitates analysis and further discussion.

Im with you, I just wish for a more Rogerian environment. Dont think thats going to happen.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Im with you, I just wish for a more Rogerian environment. Dont think thats going to happen.

What is a Rogerian environment?

 

[payn]

What is a Rogerian environment?

It's an approach to argument where folks engage with one another earnestly.

 

[Malmuria]

they are not expected to die in a random encounter.

This is fine but then why have random encounters? Just combat for combat's sake, to slowly tax resources? And what if a random encounter starts to go south, does the DM just have to fudge to keep the heroes alive?