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

[Umbran]

I forgot is godlike the one that was d10's rolling for successes but you have to choose what numbers to take and the higher the number and the higher the number of those dice both change the outcome?

Yep. In Godlike, when you are rolling you are looking for "sets". If you roll five dice and get 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, you can make either a set of three 2s or a set of two 5s. The first set has a height of 2 and a width of 3. The second has a height of 5 and a width of 2.

For most task resolution, the "height" tells you the quality of the success, the "width" tells you how fast you complete it.

In trying to hit a target in combat, the height tells you the hit location, the width determines damage done.

 

[Umbran]

Then it seems you haven’t actually played with a referee who uses combat as war, because that’s exactly what happens. PCs can drop like flies. The referee plays the monsters as out to kill the PCs.

And here, we again see the issue of driving things to poles.

Let us not go "no true Scotsman" here, in which the only GMs doing Combat as War are the ones that have PCs dropping like flies.

GMs don't have to drive combat as war to the most drastic end. The GM might do so, if that's their thing, or if they take an adversarial position with respect to their players. But in reality, there's a continuum between Sport and War, and a GM can choose anywhere along the spectrum, and it is okay for a GM who isn't at the end of the spectrum to still think of their game as War, rather than Sport.

 

[overgeeked]

This is the other side of the coin from the term sport. Folks take it very literally that the war will escalate to scorched Earth. Where I think a position that leads to a skirmish is more appropriate. YMMV.

Well, look at the end-state goal of each side. The PCs want to slaughter the inhabitants of the dungeon to the last. The inhabitants of the dungeon want that to not happen and the shortest route to that is wipe out the invaders.

Now all you need to do is consider what each side would logically and reasonably do. Immersion and verisimilitude.

The dungeon people would set every trap they could, set every ambush they could, build murder holes, etc. The PCs would do whatever random nonsense they can come up with like molotov cocktails, diverting rivers, poisoning the water and food supply, burning down the forest, etc.

No one who’s trying to murder the enemy is going to do so with honor and restraint. If they do, they’ll lose. Because the other side won’t hesitate.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, look at the end-state goal of each side. The PCs want to slaughter the inhabitants of the dungeon to the last. The inhabitants of the dungeon want that to not happen and the shortest route to that is wipe out the invaders.

still such an alien game to me... but okay, lets take this at face value...

I am the DM, and my 'goal' is for my (lets say 2 hobgoblins with 2 dozen goblins and half a dozen kobolds one of witch is a necromancer who has 3 undead) dungeon creatures want something... yeah they want to live but I need to give them a better motive. So lets say my 2 hobgoblins are both lovers and want to create a small kingdom of gobliniods... they have bullied the goblins and then made a pact with the kobold necromancer and her followers... starting there kingdom. THey want to take over a small area and to do so they have raided a few caravans and that brought the PCs in.

Now the PCs want to end the threat of the hobgoblin/goblin/kobolds/undead and have gotten to the caves they call home...

Now all you need to do is consider what each side would logically and reasonably do. Immersion and verisimilitude.

right so now I need personalities... are the hobgoblins willing to compramise, how well does the kobold necromancer trust them? are any of the goblins looking for a way out? lots of questions of the 32 people plus 3 undead I will need to make personality profiles for atleast 6 maybe more of them to be able to do this... and that is BEFORE i count the PCs.

The dungeon people would set every trap they could, set every ambush they could, build murder holes, etc. The PCs would do whatever random nonsense they can come up with like molotov cocktails, diverting rivers, poisoning the water and food supply, burning down the forest, etc.

wow... not at all what I would expect PCs to do... I mean maybe the improvised explosives, but my bet would be 'try to talk and find out the motives' would be first, and 'test the strength of there force with a feint front attack' would be second, and scout for other entrances would be third, and magical cheats would be 4th... maybe by that 4th diverting a river may help but the poisoning of food and water I doubt would come up and burning down a forest is a joke we make about the things we HATE when people think of in game.

No one who’s trying to murder the enemy is going to do so with honor and restraint. If they do, they’ll lose. Because the other side won’t hesitate.

that seems odd... do you think modern militaries never play by rules?

 

[payn]

Well, look at the end-state goal of each side. The PCs want to slaughter the inhabitants of the dungeon to the last. The inhabitants of the dungeon want that to not happen and the shortest route to that is wipe out the invaders.

Now all you need to do is consider what each side would logically and reasonably do. Immersion and verisimilitude.

The dungeon people would set every trap they could, set every ambush they could, build murder holes, etc. The PCs would do whatever random nonsense they can come up with like molotov cocktails, diverting rivers, poisoning the water and food supply, burning down the forest, etc.

No one who’s trying to murder the enemy is going to do so with honor and restraint. If they do, they’ll lose. Because the other side won’t hesitate.

That is the same in war or sport style games. I think I'm talking more the escalation to the entire setting wanting to murder the PCs and coming at them at once because war. Folks think this is the natural conclusion of combat as war, when I think its more of a playstyle philosophy than a campaign itself. Same for sport, not every encounter or campaign is expected to be on a field with a diamond painted and both sides roughly equal in capability.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That is the same in war or sport style games.

again it's why I have such a hard time splitting the two...

I could not tell you if HALF of my campagins are war or sport

 

[overgeeked]

That is the same in war or sport style games. I think I'm talking more the escalation to the entire setting wanting to murder the PCs

The world is hostile to the PCs, yes. That tends to happen in a world full of monsters when you decide to be a monster hunter.

and coming at them at once because war.

That’s not how it works. Combat as war doesn’t mean the entire world lining up to fight the PCs all at once. If you invade someone’s home, they’ll do their best to stop you in an intelligent and ruthless manner.

Folks think this is the natural conclusion of combat as war

They’d be wrong. Combat as war is about using whatever resources you have available to stay alive and beat the enemy. Importantly, this is not between the players and the referee. It’s between the monsters and the PCs. That distinction matters. A lot. It’s not an adversarial stance between the people around the table. It’s realistically playing the characters involved.

 

[payn]

again it's why I have such a hard time splitting the two...

I could not tell you if HALF of my campagins are war or sport

I tell by system, not campaign. A poster upthread a ways said you can do either in any system, which is true, but I find the more I have to fight the system to achieve my preference the less I want to use it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That’s not how it works. Combat as war doesn’t mean the entire world lining up to fight the PCs all at once. If you invade someone’s home, they’ll do their best to stop you in an intelligent and ruthless manner.

now explain how combat is sport handles the same scenero... would the monsters NOT be useing the best they have to stop the PCs?

They’d be wrong. Combat as war is about using whatever resources you have available to stay alive and beat the enemy. Importantly, this is not between the players and the referee. It’s between the monsters and the PCs.

again so in your mind during sport are teh PCs not useing there resources to beat the enemy and stay alive? is it not between the characters and the monsters?

That distinction matters. A lot. It’s not an adversarial stance between the people around the table. It’s realistically playing the characters involved.

so again now explain how sport is diffrent...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I tell by system, not campaign. A poster upthread a ways said you can do either in any system, which is true, but I find the more I have to fight the system to achieve my preference the less I want to use it.

okay, so I currently have no game I DM but I have the following games readyish...

SpellJammer Funny (D&D 5e)
Spelljammer Serius (ish) (D&D 5e)
Ravenloft take 2 (D&D playtest)
Birthright (D&D 5e)
In the Army (D&D TBD)
Knights of the realm (Mid5e)
Vampire Sin's of the Childer (V20)
1970's super heroes (TORG)
Post Modern Magic (M20)

how does the system catagorize them?