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

[Don Durito]

The more I think about it, a better way to phrase this distinctions is Combat as Challenge vs Environment as Challenge.

In "Combat as challenge" either the individual combat is intended to be balanced, or the "day" as a whole is overall balanced as a set of challenges within acceptable deviation.

In "Environment as challenge", the challenge is balanced around the adventure environent. (eg a dungeon - although it can be blown up to become the entire game world). In this case the challenge is overcoming or surviving the environment, and that may well involve scouting and knowing when to avoid combat, or coming up with ways to twist odds in the player's favour.

The reason thinking about it this way is useful, is because it makes clear that the concept of fairness in a sense applies in both cases, just in different ways. In the first the combat should be balanced and within acceptable parameters. In the second the environment should be fairly designed. If there is a dragon on the first level of a dungeon for 1st level characters, then it needs to avoidable and discoverable.

Of course, it's possible to run games in which "challenge" is not a goal at all, but when this happens most people have the sense to move to a game system other than D&D.

 

[Ixal]

The more I think about it, a better way to phrase this distinctions is Combat as Challenge vs Environment as Challenge.

In "Combat as challenge" either the individual combat is intended to be balanced, or the "day" as a whole is overall balanced as a set of challenges within acceptable deviation.

In "Environment as challenge", the challenge is balanced around the adventure environent. (eg a dungeon - although it can be blown up to become the entire game world). In this case the challenge is overcoming or surviving the environment, and that may well involve scouting and knowing when to avoid combat, or coming up with ways to twist odds in the player's favour.

The reason thinking about it this way is useful, is because it makes clear that the concept of fairness in a sense applies in both cases, just in different ways. In the first the combat should be balanced and within acceptable parameters. In the second the environment should be fairly designed. If there is a dragon on the first level of a dungeon for 1st level characters, then it needs to avoidable and discoverable.

Of course, it's possible to run games in which "challenge" is not a goal at all, but when this happens most people have the sense to move to a game system other than D&D.

In Combat as War there is no fairness. Sure, the GM, when runing a more linear campaign, can take care to not place a dragon in the place he expects the PCs to go through at level 1, but once the game starts there is no more fairness. If the PCs make a mistake and raise an alarm which makes 20+ kobolds converge on their location at the same time its their problem. No "have them arrive piece by piece to allow the PCs to rest between waves", no "the kobolds will ignore downed PCs even though they know that there is a healer among the PCs" and no "they will only capture the PCs and leave them in a place easily escaped from with all their gear nearby".
And in a sandbox world there can be a dragon on the first level of the dungeon and its the PCs job to scout that and either find a way around the dragon or have the good sense to not attempt the dungeon. Likewise the dragon will not sit around and wait till prepared adventurers attack it on their terms, but, when it notices the PCs, for example attack them first, strafe them with its breath weapon at night, drag one of them away from the party to kill one by one, etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The more I think about it, a better way to phrase this distinctions is Combat as Challenge vs Environment as Challenge.

In "Combat as challenge" either the individual combat is intended to be balanced, or the "day" as a whole is overall balanced as a set of challenges within acceptable deviation.

In "Environment as challenge", the challenge is balanced around the adventure environent. (eg a dungeon - although it can be blown up to become the entire game world). In this case the challenge is overcoming or surviving the environment, and that may well involve scouting and knowing when to avoid combat, or coming up with ways to twist odds in the player's favour.

The reason thinking about it this way is useful, is because it makes clear that the concept of fairness in a sense applies in both cases, just in different ways. In the first the combat should be balanced and within acceptable parameters. In the second the environment should be fairly designed. If there is a dragon on the first level of a dungeon for 1st level characters, then it needs to avoidable and discoverable.

Of course, it's possible to run games in which "challenge" is not a goal at all, but when this happens most people have the sense to move to a game system other than D&D.

I would call it Encounter as Challenge (where the concept of the encounter is extensible to the Adventure Day) vs Environment as Challenge. This is because I think the CaS/CaW discussion often focuses too much on combat. For example, traps. An EncC DM probably wouldn't want an instant death trap in their game (like a green devil portal with a sphere of annihilation in its mouth), whereas a EnvC DM probably wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion.

I do think you're on to something though. I agree that the concept of fairness is a crucial distinction for these playstyles.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would call it Encounter as Challenge (where the concept of the encounter is extensible to the Adventure Day) vs Environment as Challenge. This is because I think the CaS/CaW discussion often focuses too much on combat. For example, traps. An EncC DM probably wouldn't want an instant death trap in their game (like a green devil portal with a sphere of annihilation in its mouth), whereas a EnvC DM probably wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion.

I do think you're on to something though. I agree that the concept of fairness is a crucial distinction for these playstyles.

Thst tomb of horrors trap really isn't a good example of either style because of how toh itself is designed to basically function as a middle finger shaped meatgrinder

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thst tomb of horrors trap really isn't a good example of either style because of how toh itself is designed to basically function as a middle finger shaped meatgrinder

Regardless, I would think we could agree that death traps that kill are more likely to appear in a CaW style game? After all, if the enemies are doing their best to stop the PCs, a dinky 1d6 damage trap is fairly laughable. In a CaW game, if a trap is intended to kill (as opposed to raising an alarm or incapacitating) then it probably ought to be legitimately capable of killing one or more PCs, or else it isn't a very good trap.

Additionally, a death trap isn't against the spirit of this style of game. In a CaS game, one-shotting the PCs with an instant death trap is likely to be perceived as unfair, since it isn't very sporting under the majority of circumstances. Whereas in a CaW game, it will most likely be perceived as fair, since it simply demonstrated that the players should have been more cautious.

 

[tetrasodium]

Regardless, I would think we could agree that death traps that kill are more likely to appear in a CaW style game? After all, if the enemies are doing their best to stop the PCs, a dinky 1d6 damage trap is fairly laughable. In a CaW game, if a trap is intended to kill (as opposed to raising an alarm or incapacitating) then it probably ought to be legitimately capable of killing one or more PCs, or else it isn't a very good trap.

Additionally, a death trap isn't against the spirit of this style of game. In a CaS game, one-shotting the PCs with an instant death trap is likely to be perceived as unfair, since it isn't very sporting under the majority of circumstances. Whereas in a CaW game, it will most likely be perceived as fair, since it simply demonstrated that the players should have been more cautious.

It's worth noting that save or die traps are usually considered bad design for either style if you aren't playing something like a DCC funnel (which is basically a completely different style outside the CaW/CaS realm) and that a trap that hinders delays debuffs and/or splits/disorganizes the party is going to get far more mileage in CaW than CaS type gameplay without needing to kill anyone. Tossing a trog or ghoul/ghast/wraith into an otherwise near certain win of an encounter in past editions is a good example of how these types of traps could crank the fear & uncertainty of an encounter without needing to go into what if & other situational details needed to judge a trap that does the same

 

[Krachek]

Regardless, I would think we could agree that death traps that kill are more likely to appear in a CaW style game? After all, if the enemies are doing their best to stop the PCs, a dinky 1d6 damage trap is fairly laughable. In a CaW game, if a trap is intended to kill (as opposed to raising an alarm or incapacitating) then it probably ought to be legitimately capable of killing one or more PCs, or else it isn't a very good trap.

Additionally, a death trap isn't against the spirit of this style of game. In a CaS game, one-shotting the PCs with an instant death trap is likely to be perceived as unfair, since it isn't very sporting under the majority of circumstances. Whereas in a CaW game, it will most likely be perceived as fair, since it simply demonstrated that the players should have been more cautious.

In the true spirit of CaW death trap has DC unreachable for PC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In Combat as War there is no fairness. Sure, the GM, when runing a more linear campaign, can take care to not place a dragon in the place he expects the PCs to go through at level 1, but once the game starts there is no more fairness. If the PCs make a mistake and raise an alarm which makes 20+ kobolds converge on their location at the same time its their problem. No "have them arrive piece by piece to allow the PCs to rest between waves", no "the kobolds will ignore downed PCs even though they know that there is a healer among the PCs" and no "they will only capture the PCs and leave them in a place easily escaped from with all their gear nearby".
And in a sandbox world there can be a dragon on the first level of the dungeon and its the PCs job to scout that and either find a way around the dragon or have the good sense to not attempt the dungeon. Likewise the dragon will not sit around and wait till prepared adventurers attack it on their terms, but, when it notices the PCs, for example attack them first, strafe them with its breath weapon at night, drag one of them away from the party to kill one by one, etc.

There is fairness in CaW, it's just different.

A prime example of this is old school dungeon design. Level 1 of the dungeon generally had level 1 monsters (unless it was a higher level dungeon). Level 2 primarily had level 2 monsters, and so on. You can call it verisimilitude or whatever you want, but there's no denying that fairness is a part of it.

It would be easy for a DM to design a game world such that, irrespective of what they do, level 1 characters cannot gain any traction (level up). Everything in the world is simply too tough to defeat with even clever, indirect methods, and therefore they cannot level up. I dare say that even a hardcore group dedicated to CaW would consider this unfair.

Even in a CaW world, there need to be surmountable challenges. They just don't need to be surmountable by direct means (and it's okay if some things are essentially insurmountable). However, there most certainly is fairness in CaW. It's just different from the fairness expected when playing a CaS game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's worth noting that save or die traps are usually considered bad design for either style if you aren't playing something like a DCC funnel (which is basically a completely different style outside the CaW/CaS realm) and that a trap that hinders delays debuffs and/or splits/disorganizes the party is going to get far more mileage in CaW than CaS type gameplay without needing to kill anyone. Tossing a trog or ghoul/ghast/wraith into an otherwise near certain win of an encounter in past editions is a good example of how these types of traps could crank the fear & uncertainty of an encounter without needing to go into what if & other situational details needed to judge a trap that does the same

That may be true for you and your preferred style of CaW, but I assure you that I have seen gamers on these very boards who love save or die mechanics. I don't agree that it's inherently antithetical to the CaW style.

 

[Don Durito]

In Combat as War there is no fairness. Sure, the GM, when runing a more linear campaign, can take care to not place a dragon in the place he expects the PCs to go through at level 1, but once the game starts there is no more fairness. If the PCs make a mistake and raise an alarm which makes 20+ kobolds converge on their location at the same time its their problem. No "have them arrive piece by piece to allow the PCs to rest between waves", no "the kobolds will ignore downed PCs even though they know that there is a healer among the PCs" and no "they will only capture the PCs and leave them in a place easily escaped from with all their gear nearby".
And in a sandbox world there can be a dragon on the first level of the dungeon and its the PCs job to scout that and either find a way around the dragon or have the good sense to not attempt the dungeon. Likewise the dragon will not sit around and wait till prepared adventurers attack it on their terms, but, when it notices the PCs, for example attack them first, strafe them with its breath weapon at night, drag one of them away from the party to kill one by one, etc.

I would submit that most sandbox games begin with level 1 characters in a region of the world basically appropriate to first level characters*. That right there is fairness. If you design your sandbox so that the difficulty of the environments within it is signalled* (i.e there are rumours of werewolves in the haunted forest which indicate to the players they should probably wait a few levels before tackling it), then there is fairness.

You yourself say "once the game starts there is no more fairness", which suggests that there is in fact fairness and that fairness lies in the design of the environments or the overarching set-up and structure. So in fact there is a sense of fairness.

* Or at least discoverable by smart players - really it depends on the level of difficult you're pitching the game at.