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

[Ancalagon]

Combat as a sport is never "roughly equal" because if it was, the PCs would lose frequently! Instead it creates the illusion of being a roughly matched context - but it is that, an illusion. In almost all fights the PCs are almost guaranteed to win... which is why the PCs are going along with it. If the 2 sides were roughly equal, the players - after losing a number of times - would try to tip the scale in their favor via various shenanigans and cunning plan, moving towards combat as war.

So I disagree with you - 5e totally is combat as a sport. But it doesn't have to be.

Being someone who is concerned with fairness - or at least likes to think I am - I will now disagree with my previous reply, which was aimed at the OP's claim that 5e wasn't combat as a sport.

I think that the main determining factor is not the system, but the players and especially the GM.

First, one can do combat as war or as sport with any system. In fact, I think that rulesets with more complex and "tactical" gameplay are better for combat as sport, because the fight itself is the action - there are all sorts of things and powers and cool stuff the PCs could do in the big battle vs the BBEG in their throne room. And the GM may spend considerable time thinking about this big showdown, placing hidden crossbowmen on the balcony above, maybe a magical field protecting the throne etc etc etc.

If the PC plan on climbing the walls of the castle and murdering the BBEG in their sleep, (or any other "outside the box" thinking that will crush the opposition), combat is almost a foregone conclusion - there is no "need" for a full, complex combat system, since the real "action" wasn't the fight, it was the scheming.

Because the DM has to react on the fly to the PC's plans, it requires good improvisation skills, and a high level of fairness - would the foes have thought of this too? Perhaps the BBEG has powerful wards protecting their bedroom window for example. It also requires a willingness to "let go" of plans (that big set battle may not happen at all) and also a willingness to sacrifice "a good story".

I remember an encounter vs some kind of large, cursed boar (this was PF1e, Kingmaker adventure). Our party devised a cunning plan that basically involved a magically sped up PC provoking the boar, running away and drawing it into a heavily trapped ambush area. And it worked like a charm, we obliterated that boar.

But the GM wasn't happy. Even though the players had had a good time* , he felt that it should have been some big epic battle and that the encounter had been ruined. So our capacity to "game" the encounters grew less and less, with encounters starting more abruptly.

* why did I add the star? because there is a caveat. Looking back, I'm not sure if every players had a good time! Combat at war relies a lot on planning, and if some players don't enjoy planning, they won't have fun!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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...

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.

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.

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

They play by rules if an outside authority imposes them.

I think you also have to consider that real life morality doesn't necessarily match PC morality. Many players don't  want to be constrained by 21st century morality in their RPGs.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Not quite what i'm talking about. I'm talking about the PC's being crushed with no chance of survival and likely no chance of even seeing it coming - because that's where combat as war naturally leads. For it to lead anywhere else is proof that the DM's hand was on the scales and that he balanced things out just enough for the PC's to maintain a good chance of success.

Also, it's a bit offensive that you presume to know what I've played and haven't played.

The referee plays the monsters as out to kill the PCs. Just like the PCs are out to kill the monsters.

The monsters in combat as sport are also out to kill the PCs.

Tucker’s Kobolds and all that. Fantasy Vietnam. The style has a lot of history in D&D.

If all you mean by combat as war is an adventure designed specifically so it can't be beaten by the PC's simply going through a set of battles and thus requires the PC's to defeat their enemies by other means then I agree that's different than combat as sport - assuming that means an adventure that can be beaten by having the PC's engage in a series of direct combats.

But there's so much from the initial description that adds more to this model than necessary. I think it's those additional statements that are being pushed back against.

 

[Scribe]

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

I 100% dont think thats where we need to take this thread.

 

[overgeeked]

Not quite what i'm talking about. I'm talking about the PC's being crushed with no chance of survival and likely no chance of even seeing it coming - because that's where combat as war naturally leads.

No, it doesn’t. Looking at any real war shows it’s a silly claim. Wars start and end all the time without one side being obliterated without a chance to see it coming, etc.

For it to lead anywhere else is proof that the DM's hand was on the scales and that he balanced things out just enough for the PC's to maintain a good chance of success.

Not at all. It means the referee is playing fair. There are 217 kobolds in this dungeon, they’ve have 7 years to dig in, they’ve built these traps, and fortified those positions. If the players decide to engage that and manage to beat it, it means the players beat it. If they fail, they fail. This is how most hexcrawls and dungeoncrawls work.

Importantly, if the referee adds extra stuff to the dungeon specifically to win, they’re now a crappy adversarial referee. Whatever you prepped is all there is. If it’s not reasonable or justifiable in game, then you’ve crossed into adversarial refereeing.

Also, it's a bit offensive that you presume to know what I've played and haven't played.

Your responses are indicative that you haven’t played this style because you’re mischaracterizing it.

The monsters in combat as sport are also out to kill the PCs.

Winning a battle doesn’t mean killing the opponent. Ransom, capture, etc.

But there's so much from the initial description that adds more to this model than necessary. I think it's those additional statements that are being pushed back against.

It seems that a lot of people have a lot of different definitions of sport. And war. I’m using them in the common, natural language meaning of those words. Sport, sportsmanlike, good sport, etc.

It’s not sport if you have incredibly lopsided advantages to one side or the other. If you earn those advantages through cunning and gameplay, that approaches combat as war, but, importantly, the monsters need to be able to respond in kind. It’s shenanigans all around that gets you combat as war.

If, however, the system itself gives one side those advantages, that’s neither war nor sport. No advantages were earned and the fight is unfairly lopsided.

Weirdly, if we were to flip things around, give the wild advantage to the minsters, it would almost be a horror game. You’re playing a CR1/4 goblin against a level 1 adventuring party build by an avid power gamer. Go. Might see a sudden flourishing of combat as war. You can bet the PC goblins will start doing everything they can think of to avoid a direct fight.

Puzzle, spectacle, and wrestling (fake sport done purely for entertainment) are all high on my list for descriptions of 5E combat.

 

[Scribe]

Many players don't  want to be constrained by 21st century morality in their RPGs.

By any objective measure, PC's are not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree, I think framework is excellent, but the chosen terms are bad.

I think it actually is, folks just take it incorrectly and run with it.

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!"

Again, its meant to define the design focus of the system. A big issue with the framework is it came out of the E War. So naturally folks assume it means some diametrically opposed philosophy. It's not, you can have strategy in a tactics game, and you can have tactics in a strategy game. Though, game design can lean heavily into one or the other making them a focal point. Makes sense coming from 3E/4E split, though 5E didnt lean into either, so it has confused folks.

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.

From what I'm seeing, we have at least three axes proposed for differentiating the goal/purpose and expression of combat in a D&D-like system. They are, if I haven't missed anything:
Player Methods: Tactics vs Strategy (blow-by-blow action or vs campaign logistics)
Player Attitude: Heroic vs Pragmatic (meritoriousness and discipline vs ruthlessness and guile)
Gameplay Function: Narrative vs Challenge (genre enforcement or theme examination vs entertaining mechanics or puzzle-solving)

None of these is a true axis, in the sense that it is possible to make some efforts in both directions for all three. But most D&D-like games will have a metaphorical "center" which does fall somewhere along this spectrum.

Early D&D would be very heavily Strategic/Pragmatic/Challenge. 3e was intended to be Tactical/Heroic/Narrative, but because of the massive flaws in the system, it actually ends up encouraging more Strategic/Pragmatic/Narrative combat (because well-built spellcasters, already a Strategic-leaning element, are nearly always able to win any single combat and thus the difficulty shifts to whittling away spell slots and controlling rest/recovery rates.) 4e went full bore Tactical/Heroic, but took a surprisingly neutral stance on the third axis, providing many tools to enable a heavy Narrative focus despite clearly aiming the system toward Challenge. For a not-formally-D&D example, 13th Age would be Tactical/Heroic/mildly Narrative.

And then 5e has intentionally tried to avoid ever taking a stand on any of them. It isn't particularly Strategic nor Tactical, more by dearth of either than by active presence of both. It isn't particularly Heroic nor Pragmatic, other than the lingering influence of 3e charop stuff which it generally tries to mitigate or even eliminate. And it isn't particularly interested in either Narrative or Challenge, since it doesn't use the typical tools of the former (e.g. monsters don't play by PC rules, thus dodging the "verisimilitude" side of this axis, but there's also near-zero "storygame" influence on 5e) and is so mechanically flat and minimally balanced as to struggle to provide the latter.

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.

 

[Composer99]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Wow, that's really interesting. How are you getting that result? Are the monsters making a point of killing downed PCs? Is the party pushing through all their healing surges?

 

[Redneckomancer]

Combat as War, Combat as Sport, Combat as Spectacle, Combat as Puzzle, Combat as Narrative, Combat as Genre Convention, Combat as Obstacle, Combat as Display, Combat as Performance, Combat as Story, Combat as Heroes, Combat as Anti-Heroes, Combat as Villain, Combat as Filler, Combat as Challenge, Combat as Breakfast, Combat as Monty Hall, Combat as Plato's Hot Dog, Combat as Console Wars, Combat as New Coke, Combat as Meme, Combat as Monty Haul, Combat as Noun, Combat as Verb, Combat as BBC Radio 4 Presents The Lord of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien adapted to radio by Brian Selby and Michael Bakewell.

Good, now that we have properly defined terms that we all definitely agree on, we can finally have a good solid discussion. What was the question?

No but to be a little serious, this "use niche terms as a shorthand for some thesis statement" never works out. Combat as War vs Combat As Sport is a failure from the start because as has been pointed out, combat as sport has always been an intentionally nonsense pejorative against 4e, and as time has gone has lost even that meaning. See: everyone arguing what "Sport" even constitutes in this thread. Also all dichotomies are false dichotomies.
It's much more useful to ask "What is the game trying to do with these mechanics? Is it successful? What is it actually doing?" which I know all the "Combat as" shorthand is supposed to wrap up in a neat little jargon but, yeah again just looking at this thread jargon just isn't going to cut it. It never has, honestly.

With that in mind, 5e combat is... weird. The feeling I get from the rules is that 5e combat wants to be

• an exciting display of PC abilities
• easy for the DM to run
• be quick and hit softly with a focus more on attrition of resources over several combats (hp, spell slots, consumables) instead of managing specific short-return resources
• Have tactical bite with a focus on managing short return resources (fighter second wind, ki points, warlock spell slots)
• enforce a separation between 'realistic' actions and 'fantastical' actions (limited healing capability outside spells, very limited ability to apply conditions without spells ((itself mostly a reaction to 4e's Daily Powers for fighters))
• make the game run smoothly with less time spent on gritty details like resting (all hp back from along rest), gear choice (most weapons don't matter outside of being On Handed, Light, or Heavy. Things like Crowbars and Torches are made extraneous by the abundance of Advantage on- abilities and Darkvision)
• Ease of play for players where they only have to keep track of their own characters abilities (very few synergistic actions outside of a buff spell or Bard Inspiration, huge discouragement of handing out a lot of magic items with niche abilities)
• Sometimes, a big memorable set piece battle (lair/epic actions, Dragons Breaking CR)
• A reinforcement of the Iconic D&D tropes that have built up over the decades (Fireball being a powerhouse spell, Iconic D&D monsters like Mind Flayers and Dragons and Beholders being the aforementioned set piece beasties)

Does it do any of this well? Well, actually, yes and no. It accomplishes a lot of this stuff, but a lot of this stuff is at odds and sometimes mutually exclusive. Yes, the "Sack of hp and multiattack" monsters are very simple for aDM to run, but they're also very boring. The average fight difficulty actually being pretty easy means it does focus more on long term attrition, but unless the Dm comes in and enforces some kind of time limit or consequence for resting beyond the 1 a day Random Encounter check, that attrition doesn't mean a whole lot. That does mean it's easier to pick up and play and just coast on the vibes and story but sometimes the story lacks bite without those consequences and stakes. The soft hitting bunch of easy monsters can also add up to Cool PC Abilities and Tactics falling flat because yeah, it looks like a Heavy Weight Champion against a run of anemic teenagers. The simplicity of the monsters also undercuts the focus on tactics because, well if your pack of hill giants can only move and attack what sort of tactics do you really need or can even employ against them? Having these very simple enemies and any battlefield changing abilities being very powerful (Hold Person) and very limited (Only as a spell, limited spell slots, concentration on one spell only etc) means the DM has to do extra work to make the battlefield tactically interesting which makes the game more complicated to prep not easier and... This is a very long post.

TL;Dr Combat as Mcdonalds- Its cheap, its fine, some people really like it, some people can't stand it, it works as an alternative when you're too tired to cook a full meal but it's never going to be as good as you need it to be.