D&D General Discuss: Combat as War in D&D

[FrogReaver]

Sure. But so what?

That was a response to someone asking for elaboration.

So what does the rest of this post have to do with that?

That’s part of the point of CaW. If the players are smart enough to run good CaW, then they’ll probably be smart enough to know when to cut their losses and run. CaW doesn’t stop once initiative is rolled. Good GaW avoids needing to roll initiative in the first place.

If the players are running that clever they’ll also be paranoid and looking for traps. If they lose that, they likely die. It’s not that CaW is bad or hard, it’s mostly exhausting.

If the PCs can walk over the monsters, then the monsters can walk over the PCs. I don’t see the downside. Unless it’s bad because it subverts the notion that the PCs must always win. Well, frankly, good.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean.

If Combat is war is about making the fight unfair, and the DM controls not only the enemy but the resources they have at hand as well as all possible obstacles to their logistics... then why should the DM just not always put the enemy at overwhelming advantage.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If Combat is war is about making the fight unfair, and the DM controls not only the enemy but the resources they have at hand as well as all possible obstacles to their logistics... then why should the DM just not always put the enemy at overwhelming advantage.

The usual answer would be verisimilitude.

 

[dave2008]

You seem to be stuck on the notion of a single group of monsters. There's a reason I used the word 'eventually'. The PC's may have a sizable advantage advantage against enemy group A and may completely demolish them, but enemy Group A isn't the only enemy group and the PC's won't have a sizable advantage against every enemy group.

You didn't answer my question, so I can respond to your comment. If you want a response, answer my questions so I can properly respond. Thank you.

 

[dave2008]

The usual answer would be verisimilitude.

But that doesn't appear to be @FrogReaver's goal

 

[FrogReaver]

You didn't answer my question, so I can respond to your comment. If you want a response, answer my questions so I can properly respond. Thank you.

That was my answer. You asked me a question about a position I don't take and I explained the position I do take.

 

[Helldritch]

But that doesn't appear to be @FrogReaver's goal

But I do think that it is implied. You can't give everything to your BBEG or otherwise that BBEG would already rule the world. You weight what the other equivalent power houses in your world have and you adjust the possibilities of your BBEG in consequences of what your other powerhouse have at their disposal. In the case of a minor BBEG, you might want to give it a bit more and in the case of a world treath class BBEG you might give it a lot more. As long as you keep it within a certain logical amount and that you keep track as to justify your moves, your players will not complain. At least, not that much....

 

[Vaalingrade]

The usual answer would be verisimilitude.

Couldn't be. Verisimilitude only interacts with D&D to make it less fun, not more.

 

[Xetheral]

I'll take CaS v CaW every time, thanks, if it's a choice between that and GNS.

The one thing with running combat as war that might not jive with the modern game is that true CaW somewhat requires a more adversarial approach on the part of the DM. You're not cheering for the PCs during the battle; you're in fact trying your best with the resources at hand (i.e. the opponents and whatever they have going for them) to - fairly as per the rules - squash them dead, and you're cheering for the opposition.

After (if) they win, that's when you can cheer for the PCs.

I would note that it's entirely possible to run a CaW game with the DM not in an adversarial role. Illusionist CaW works just as well (or as badly, as I suspect you would say) as Illusionist CaS.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would note that it's entirely possible to run a CaW game with the DM not in an adversarial role. Illusionist CaW works just as well (or as badly, as I suspect you would say) as Illusionist CaS.

In a lot pf ways doing it makes things even easier because the players go out of their way to seek out & use/manipulate world details in their own benefit so they basically can wind up pumping the gm for worldbuilding loredump & descriptive details that would be difficult to express all at once a opposed to being shaded bit by bit with time to think.