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

[EzekielRaiden]

The phrase existed long, long before 4E.

You got a citation for that? Because every discussion I've ever had about it has indicated that the "combat as war"/"combat as sport" alleged dichotomy was proposed specifically to so-called "analyze" 4e and why it was clearly not actually D&D.

 

[payn]

If a theory is widely (and easily) misunderstood in a way which not only contradicts its core premise, but actively injects an inflammatory and prejudiced perspective, one which was plausibly the intent of the original proposition (given you admit it arose, or at least gained traction, in part to reify edition war gripes into putatively objective claims), it seems more reasonable to say "throw it out and start over," not "but it's got a kernel of good beneath all the dung!"

Considering you have heaved massive amounts of dung on it yourself, I dont exactly take this as a good faith argument. I dont blame you, I know your position and the origins of the framework, but still, I think it has merit just not to the axe grinders I guess.

And framing it as (effectively) "dirty strategy" vs "clean tactics" is interesting, but I must beg your forgiveness for remaining rather skeptical if it bears out all that far. As they say, once bitten, twice shy.

I have zero idea how you came to this conclusion. Based on my comments? No idea. Not once have I made any qualitative statements about strategy or tactics in relation to one another. Are you confusing me with others? Perhaps speaking generally about the framework and its impression on others?

Or, to give my own turn on the "everyone's second favorite" (because I assure you it ain't mine!), it's the "never do anything that might draw enough attention to upset anyone" edition. The Caspar Milquetoast: slide inoffensively off whatever preferences people bring, in the hope that the critical mass of D&D tropes will work. Of course, this is absolutely me bringing in my own bias, as I felt (and still feel) openly and intentionally (in an abstract, group way) snubbed by 5e and its design. It's hard to love something that goes out of its way to tell you that the people who said "your preferences suck and don't belong in D&D, and you should feel bad for having them" were right.

This is what I am talking about. Again, to be fair to you I know the framework originated in the E War, but I think it can be taken out of that context and still be useful in RPG design discussion. It doesn't impact me emotionally, as it seems to have for others. There is nothing for me to win or be right about here.

 

[Redneckomancer]

"On a long enough time line, every thread goes back to a 4e debate." - Godwin 2022, probably.

Sorry, I'm still in therapy for my 2010 edition war PTSD

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Considering you have heaved massive amounts of dung on it yourself, I dont exactly take this as a good faith argument. I dont blame you, I know your position and the origins of the framework, but still, I think it has merit just not to the axe grinders I guess.

My point is: why shackle yourself to sometbing that has been used so offensively? Consider, for instance, the old technical definitions of terms like "imbecile" and "idiot." Did you know that these were originally technical, and specific to particular degrees of mental disability? They served an extremely useful function once, as they helped break the idea that all mentally-disabled people are equally disabled, introducing the public to the idea that mental disability is a spectrum and not an on/off binary. However, these terms also extremely quickly became used as terms of abuse, and within fifty years there was a push even in the medical community to eliminate them and go back to having one term. We have had a treadmill on that front too, with "amentia" (lit. "without mind") being replaced by "retardation" (literally "slowed [development]"), which was itself quickly replaced with "intellectual disability." That last one seems to have finally stuck, probably because it's too technical to become a term of mockery.

Point being: even something that truly, objectively does have merit and objectively did good things in the past can become too toxic to retain. The legacy of "CaW/CaS" was toxic from effectively day 1. Why not dispense with it and just focus on your "strategy focus vs tactics focus" line? That has none of the baggage and, from what I can tell, more utility, because it explicitly recognizes that a single game can feature both things, where CaW/CaS asserts a hard binary, where any effort that leans toward "War" axiomatically moves away from "Sport."

I have zero idea how you came to this conclusion. Based on my comments? No idea. Not once have I made any qualitative statements about strategy or tactics in relation to one another. Are you confusing me with others? Perhaps speaking generally about the framework and its impression on others?

I think you may have misunderstood my terms, in which case I apologize for being unclear. I meant "dirty strategy" in the sense of "fighting dirty": doing underhanded, dishonorable, even wicked things because victory is the only thing that matters. Thus "clean tactics" is the (alleged) other side, the (alleged) expectation of fairness and gentlemen's agreements and the like.

My intent was to call out that you can also have dirty tactics and clean strategy. E.g. two honorable commanders choosing not to shell retreating soldiers because that's not okay.

Since I screwed up here, and sincerely apologize, what terms would you prefer for describing this skullduggery vs respect kind of thing? Earlier I used "Heroic vs Pragmatic," is that a better alternative?

This is what I am talking about. Again, to be fair to you I know the framework originated in the E War, but I think it can be taken out of that context and still be useful in RPG design discussion. It doesn't impact me emotionally, as it seems to have for others. There is nothing for me to win or be right about here.

Alright. As noted above, I feel this is something where a lot of wounds are still pretty raw, and where there are legitimately more productive uses of our time than preserving a faulty shorthand when more specific terms exist and are if anything more useful than the alleged shorthand.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alright, I went digging. Google search turned up exactly two results for the phrase "combat as sport" before 2008 (incredibly useful to be able to request "before:2008"!) These are both academic works discussing literal blood sports, that is, gladiatorial combat as a sport. I don't think anyone here would recognize that as being an example of "Combat as Sport" in the way intended for TTRPG analysis. Advancing in time, no reference occurs before 2011 that is not either the same academic sense, or one character biography. After 2011, numerous new references pop up...and literally all of them are about 4e. (Notably, there is one false positive from 2007 in Polish. The article is from 2007, but the comment using the phrase is from 2011!)

Google Ngram provides essentially the same story. The terms technically existed as early as the 1980s, from what I can tell, but only in academic media, with possible rare exceptions for describing a literary character who derives an athletic-like enjoyment from violent, no-holds-barred conflict: essentially, "war enjoyed like a sport," rather than enforcing sport rules upon war.

So...no. The term does not "long, long" predate 4e, except in a completely different academic (or very rarely literary) sense. In the meaning of "violent combat restricted by rules of fair play and sportsmanship," the term specifically did come into existence in order to discuss 4e D&D, and in almost all cases, to do so pejoratively, usually in a vein similar to the "MMO on paper" or "button-mashing" canards. That is, by portraying 4e combat as  merely sport, it becomes less serious, less impactful, less intense, because who would ever claim that the Superb Owl is anything like the beaches if Normandy or the jungles of Vietnam? Who in their right mind could give equal weight to even a boxing match (where a hockey game is liable to break out! ) as they would to the Battle of Thermopylae or the Battle of Cannae?

I want to be clear, I understand that there are folks who, totally divorced from any and all edition warring stuff, find this legitimately interesting and potentially productive. I get that there are differences in tone and focus between Gygaxian murder-hole fantasy heistery and Heinsooic high-flying fantasy action, and that it can be worthwhile to explore how and why they differ and what can be learned from those differences.

I just think we should try to leave "Combat as War" and "Combat as Sport" behind when we do so. The well is poisoned. Let us brick it up and shift to the newer, deeper, cleaner wells that have been dug in the aftermath. This is, of course, my personal stance. The only person "required" to heed it is me, and between you and me, I'm not real confident in his consistency. But it genuinely seems to me that we have legitimately stronger alternatives that lack the baggage.

 

[payn]

My point is: why shackle yourself to sometbing that has been used so offensively? Consider, for instance, the old technical definitions of terms like "imbecile" and "idiot." Did you know that these were originally technical, and specific to particular degrees of mental disability? They served an extremely useful function once, as they helped break the idea that all mentally-disabled people are equally disabled, introducing the public to the idea that mental disability is a spectrum and not an on/off binary. However, these terms also extremely quickly became used as terms of abuse, and within fifty years there was a push even in the medical community to eliminate them and go back to having one term. We have had a treadmill on that front too, with "amentia" (lit. "without mind") being replaced by "retardation" (literally "slowed [development]"), which was itself quickly replaced with "intellectual disability." That last one seems to have finally stuck, probably because it's too technical to become a term of mockery.

Point being: even something that truly, objectively does have merit and objectively did good things in the past can become too toxic to retain. The legacy of "CaW/CaS" was toxic from effectively day 1. Why not dispense with it and just focus on your "strategy focus vs tactics focus" line? That has none of the baggage and, from what I can tell, more utility, because it explicitly recognizes that a single game can feature both things, where CaW/CaS asserts a hard binary, where any effort that leans toward "War" axiomatically moves away from "Sport."

I did mention I moved from war vs sport, to strategy vs tactics for the reason of getting away from definition confusion and any implied insults. Though, I do think these things are fluid and can start neutrally and end up as pejoratives. I think its only a matter of time until nuerodivergent becomes an insult. I cant control anyone else's use of it but my own, so I try and use neutral terminology in good faith.

I think you may have misunderstood my terms, in which case I apologize for being unclear. I meant "dirty strategy" in the sense of "fighting dirty": doing underhanded, dishonorable, even wicked things because victory is the only thing that matters. Thus "clean tactics" is the (alleged) other side, the (alleged) expectation of fairness and gentlemen's agreements and the like.

My intent was to call out that you can also have dirty tactics and clean strategy. E.g. two honorable commanders choosing not to shell retreating soldiers because that's not okay.

Since I screwed up here, and sincerely apologize, what terms would you prefer for describing this skullduggery vs respect kind of thing? Earlier I used "Heroic vs Pragmatic," is that a better alternative?

That makes sense. I am a little confused on how these originate to the terminology? Is it a common understanding that strategy is dirty and tactics are clean?

Alright. As noted above, I feel this is something where a lot of wounds are still pretty raw, and where there are legitimately more productive uses of our time than preserving a faulty shorthand when more specific terms exist and are if anything more useful than the alleged shorthand.

Im all for ditching the words war and sport. I just like the framework and think it makes a lot of sense in D&D design. Im trying, and likely will never succeed, to get folks to look at it more conceptually, as opposed to literally (which is odd) and/or partisan.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did mention I moved from war vs sport, to strategy vs tactics for the reason of getting away from definition confusion and any implied insults. Though, I do think these things are fluid and can start neutrally and end up as pejoratives. I think its only a matter of time until neurodivergent becomes an insult. I cant control anyone else's use of it but my own, so I try and use neutral terminology in good faith.

I suspect "neurodivergent," like "intellectual disability," is too long and technical. You might get a shortened version, like "ND" becoming "endie" in the same way that "fundamentalist(s)" gets shrunk to the pejorative "fundie(s)," but I don't think you'll see much more than that. But that's a separate discussion.

That makes sense. I am a little confused on how these originate to the terminology? Is it a common understanding that strategy is dirty and tactics are clean?

I mean, "fighting dirty" is a pretty common phrase. I don't think there is a clear link per se, but I do think people associate hard-fought warfare campaigns ("strategy") with doing whatever it takes to win, while there is something of an ingrained sense of ruthless conduct in mano-a-mano fighting being something at least disreputable (but sometimes in an "I'm a hard woman making hard choices" sense, which can raise rather than lower reputation if, as the proverbial commish might say, "you're a loose cannon, but I can't argue with results!")

Perhaps it has to do with personal vs impersonal. In small-unit tactical combat, you're directly dealing with another sapient being or beings. We are taught to respect other sapients (we necessarily must be, it's critical for social order to exist!), so we have an innate bias toward being respectful even before cultural practices like vows or codes of conduct. And then such practices often arise to mitigate the danger of having trained, armed, violent members of your society, and the degradation of such norms is a very serious problem (consider Rome after the Praetorian Guard began to regularly practice succession by sharp-object overdose.) It takes a lot to overcome that bias.

Meanwhile, the modern world loves think pieces on how we have dissociated war from the human lives destroyed, how a push of a button can exterminate humanity and leave the one who pushed it guilt-free because he doesn't see the consequences. Strategic responses are necessarily removed in time and/or space from the actual action and bloodshed. That erodes any concerns about honor or heroism and emphasizes a need for practicality. When coupled with the fact that "strategic" thinking is usually about scales of months or years in time, regions or nations in space, and statistical millions in terms of resources and human lives, it's not hard to see how at least comparatively "strategy" is the more "dirty"-leaning of the two.

But, again, there are exceptions in both directions. We crack jokes about "pocket sand!" for instance, a clear example of "dirty tactics," while people like Sun Tzu present an unusually nuanced take despite obviously favoring the things which achieve victory, because they recognize that winning all the combats but destroying the nation in the doing is not "victory" worthy of the name.

Im all for ditching the words war and sport. I just like the framework and think it makes a lot of sense in D&D design. Im trying, and likely will never succeed, to get folks to look at it more conceptually, as opposed to literally (which is odd) and/or partisan.

In that case, I won't mention it further. We're on the same page.

 

[tetrasodium]

I guess those PCs I killed last week are just filler for Orcus then

I've killed PC's in 5e. probably moreso than 3.x. When a PC died in 3.x the group could always look back & theory craft what they could have done different & what they could do to avoid similar in the future. When PCs are killed in 5e that sor of introspective tends to be missing from the death by fiat feeling of monsters targeting downed players. death saves & trivialized healing/recovery insulate PCs to such an extreme degree that there's nothing to theorycraft for the future within the space of that razor's edge of execution.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm playing in a 4e game with more PC deaths than I've seen in a campaign since I started playing D&D in the late 80s.

If this is "combat as sport" then the monsters are not being very sporting.

Yay monsters! Go monsters! Rah rah rah!

Though I've never played it, reading the initial rules and hearing anecdotes tells me it's tendency seems to be to either kill no characters or all of them at once; they kind of rise and fall as a unit. Contrast this with 0e through 3e, where killing individual characters was fairly common even if TPKs were not.

 

[Malmuria]

To me, combat as war and combat as sport is a useful distinction, and the distinction rests on the importance of what happens in or outside of initiative. The more that actions taken outside of initiative matter to achieving the eventual outcome, the more that the encounter could be characterized as "combat as war." Including:

• holistic encounter environments. There are two lizardmen in room A, but that's just down the hall from room C, where there are four more lizardmen. Noise from room A might attract the occupants of room C; if this leads to a wildly unbalanced encounter, so be it. Meanwhile, the DM is better off preparing adversary rosters than discrete encounters. This is also why a "dungeon crawl" is more than just going through a series of encounters in a dungeon environment; the environment incl things like noise, light, etc is an important part of the challenge.
• running away, sneaking past, negotiation and diplomacy are valid strategies for dealing with encounters. PCs can avoid combat by making allies or otherwise talking themselves out of a situation. For example, by making friends with the goblins in one part of the dungeon, the PCs might be better able to defeat the ogres in a different area. In this sense the phrase "combat-as" is misleading because the encounter might actually be about avoiding combat.
• choosing equipment (while managing encumbrance), bringing hirelings, and choosing spells are key to success. By choosing spells in the dnd context I mean true vanican casting, where you have to decide to prepare two magic missles or one MM and one sleep, etc.

Whether those outside-of-initiative things matter will be dependent more on the the group and preferred playstyle than system. That said, 5e doesn't force me as a player to think too much about what I'm doing outside of initiative; for example, cantrips + spontaneous casting + rituals mean I can just choose the best option in the moment, and the fact that encounters will be balanced for my level plus death saves has usually meant that brute forcing our way through them is actually the easiest method.

This twitter thread and the reaction in this video crystallized what these expectations are for 5e/pathfinder players. In the video at the linked time, the speaker complains that wotc random encounter tables are not necessarily balanced for PC level, and that the advice that players should parlay doesn't work because "that's not how players think." Seemingly, the desire is that combats are tactically challenging and that the PCs should only risk death if their in-initiative tactics are poor, but that in most cases the combats will feel challenging but not be deadly. Pathfinder 2e is cited as a game that provides tools for the DM to "balance" encounters in this way without resorting to fudging.