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

[Fanaelialae]

I think it’s debatable whether what you are calling CaW here is actually CaW.

Fair, but I've read play reports from DMs who would undoubtedly consider themselves CaW, wherein the plans the players executed were (IMO) irrationally convoluted and would have probably been doomed to failure, yet they succeeded in that DM's game. Heck, the very post that came up with CaW and CaS has an example of CaW style play that probably wouldn't work in my game (kiting an owlbear to a giant beehive while throwing mud in order to steal honey).

A CaW style game doesn't need to be hard or deadly. I would agree that many people who play it prefer it not to be easy, but that doesn't mean that a game that is easy isn't CaW.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair, but I've read play reports from DMs who would undoubtedly consider themselves CaW, wherein the plans the players executed were (IMO) irrationally convoluted and would have probably been doomed to failure, yet they succeeded in that DM's game. Heck, the very post that came up with CaW and CaS has an example of CaW style play that probably wouldn't work in my game (kiting an owlbear to a giant beehive while throwing mud in order to steal honey).

A CaW style game doesn't need to be hard or deadly. I would agree that many people who play it prefer it not to be easy, but that doesn't mean that a game that is easy isn't CaW.

Im not so sure. I’ve not seen one example of it being not-deadly with enemy reasons/tactics going along with the CaW mindset. Those principles seem to have to be ignored either by dm fiat of always puttiing in a reason for the enemies to not engage in such tactics or the enemies just being plain dumb and not engaging in anything like that themselves.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Im not so sure. I’ve not seen one example of it being not-deadly with enemy reasons/tactics going along with the CaW mindset. Those principles seem to have to be ignored either by dm fiat of always puttiing in a reason for the enemies to not engage in such tactics or the enemies just being plain dumb and not engaging in anything like that themselves.

I disagree. For starters, not every DM is a tactical genius. If the players are better at tactical thinking than their DM, that by itself is likely to make the game easier by an order of magnitude.

It's not that difficult to come up with a reason for most enemies not to kill if you want to. Obviously, some enemies will kill PCs if in a position to do so, but they need to be in a position to do so in the first place. Others may have very rational reasons to keep the PCs alive (such as ransoming them). Whether or not these things are in the world depends entirely on the DM. You can make a world where enemies are ruthless, or one where ransoms are commonplace. Either is perfectly in line with CaW.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not that difficult to come up with a reason for most enemies not to kill if you want to.

Which is what I would call proof that such a DM isn’t running the enemies with a combat as war mindset.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Which is what I would call proof that such a DM isn’t running the enemies with a combat as war mindset.

So it's your belief that if a DM isn't doing everything in their power to murder the PCs, they aren't playing CaW? Even if the NPCs have goals that would make them want to keep the PCs alive?

I disagree. CaW is about the DM not holding back. However, not holding back doesn't necessarily equate to killing the PCs, if that's not in line with the NPCs' goals. If bandits want to ransom the PCs, then it's about capturing and holding them by the most effective means available to the bandits. Giant spiders might paralyze their prey without killing it, so that they can have a nice tasty snack when they get hungry.

A world where every NPC is a ruthless murderhobo is one way to do CaW, but I certainly don't think it's the only way. CaW allows for a wide range of worlds, including those where murdering the PCs is not preferred for most NPCs, because they have different priorities.

 

[FrogReaver]

So it's your belief that if a DM isn't doing everything in their power to murder the PCs, they aren't playing CaW? Even if the NPCs have goals that would make them want to keep the PCs alive?

I disagree. CaW is about the DM not holding back. However, not holding back doesn't necessarily equate to killing the PCs, if that's not in line with the NPCs' goals. If bandits want to ransom the PCs, then it's about capturing and holding them by the most effective means available to the bandits. Giant spiders might paralyze their prey without killing it, so that they can have a nice tasty snack when they get hungry.

A world where every NPC is a ruthless murderhobo is one way to do CaW, but I certainly don't think it's the only way. CaW allows for a wide range of worlds, including those where murdering the PCs is not preferred for most NPCs, because they have different priorities.

There’s two things going on that you are getting muddled.

1. Whether an individual group of enemies tactics can be described as operating under CaW.

2. Whether all enemies in a CaW campaign must operate under CaW.

I’m addressing 1 and you are trying to act like I’m taking the stance that all enemies in a CaW campaign must adhere to CaW - which is something I’ve nowhere said and frankly don’t believe.

 

[Ixal]

So it's your belief that if a DM isn't doing everything in their power to murder the PCs, they aren't playing CaW? Even if the NPCs have goals that would make them want to keep the PCs alive?

I disagree. CaW is about the DM not holding back. However, not holding back doesn't necessarily equate to killing the PCs, if that's not in line with the NPCs' goals. If bandits want to ransom the PCs, then it's about capturing and holding them by the most effective means available to the bandits. Giant spiders might paralyze their prey without killing it, so that they can have a nice tasty snack when they get hungry.

A world where every NPC is a ruthless murderhobo is one way to do CaW, but I certainly don't think it's the only way. CaW allows for a wide range of worlds, including those where murdering the PCs is not preferred for most NPCs, because they have different priorities.

Why do the bandits think they can get any ransom for the PCs?
If there is a in game reason then they should hold them as prisoner. But their goal is that the PCs do not escape and will do everything they think is necessary and reasonable to ensure that. Holding them in cages, keeping constant watch, torture or mutilate spellcasters and certainly not leave any equipment stored nearby the PCs can use.

Thats very different from the near guranteed escapes PCs usually get in such situations where it is often made sure that they get their equipment back and that they, again, only face small groups of enemies they can handle in their weakened state.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why do the bandits think they can get any ransom for the PCs?
If there is a in game reason then they should hold them as prisoner. But their goal is that the PCs do not escape and will do everything they think is necessary and reasonable to ensure that. Holding them in cages, keeping constant watch, torture or mutilate spellcasters and certainly not leave any equipment stored nearby the PCs can use.

Thats very different from the near guranteed escapes PCs usually get in such situations where it is often made sure that they get their equipment back and that they, again, only face small groups of enemies they can handle in their weakened state.

Yep. Escapes make for a good theatrical story but the chances of an internal escape from a CaW minded group after already being captured is slim. They hold all the cards so to speak.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There’s two things going on that you are getting muddled.

1. Whether an individual group of enemies tactics can be described as operating under CaW.

2. Whether all enemies in a CaW campaign must operate under CaW.

I’m addressing 1 and you are trying to act like I’m taking the stance that all enemies in a CaW campaign must adhere to CaW - which is something I’ve nowhere said and frankly don’t believe.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your statements.

What I'm saying though is that I don't think that the NPCs doing their best to murder the PCs is a necessary component of the CaW mindset. It's certainly sufficient for CaW. But not necessary.

If the NPCs primary motivation is gold, and they believe that ransoming the PCs will allow them to acquire more gold than killing them, then I think that capturing the PCs is absolutely in line with CaW, provided that they use their best means to accomplish that goal. You haven't suddenly switched to running a CaS encounter just because the NPCs don't want to kill the PCs. A CaS encounter is characterized by being straight-forwardly fair. If the NPCs set an ambush leveraging unfair means and/or overwhelming force to capture the the PCs, that's not a CaS encounter. It's CaW. Despite that the PCs are in no imminent danger of dying. The only real threat may be poverty, but it's clearly a CaW encounter if you ask me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why do the bandits think they can get any ransom for the PCs?
If there is a in game reason then they should hold them as prisoner. But their goal is that the PCs do not escape and will do everything they think is necessary and reasonable to ensure that. Holding them in cages, keeping constant watch, torture or mutilate spellcasters and certainly not leave any equipment stored nearby the PCs can use.

Thats very different from the near guranteed escapes PCs usually get in such situations where it is often made sure that they get their equipment back and that they, again, only face small groups of enemies they can handle in their weakened state.

In the post you quoted, I literally said the bandits would use the most effective means to capture and hold the PCs. Obviously, that precludes a near guaranteed escape (unless these bandits are way out of their depth and don't realize who they're dealing with, but that's not particularly relevant).