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

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't have to be "purely gamist reasons". Sure, the DM isn't going to have that level of detail and will need to make something up, but that doesn't mean the DM can't try to make a reasonable extrapolation from established facts in the game world. Sure, there will be inevitably be some gamist component to the decision (and I don't consider that a bad thing), but the decision doesn't need to be exclusively gamist.

Well, I agree that it will have to be bound by existing fiction, genre expectations, and such. Presumably if the answer is 'out there' in terms of not seemingly plausible (Orcs can go without food for 10 years) then this will have to be worked into the fiction, and should PROBABLY already have been established.

I just mean, its hard to really judge something like "is there enough water supply in the orc lair?" Any answer will be significant in a siege situation where it is coming up. I don't know what criteria you would use to decide, given that the GM's answer is unconstrained by existing fiction.

 

[Don Durito]

Right, this is one of the dimensions of the whole 'nobody really knows the world' conundrum. I actually think this is the less significant dimension of it, but it is one that comes up often enough. Another is the vast range of outcomes that can be reasonably expected from an action, coupled with very limited information about many details of the capabilities of PCs or NPCs.

A very simple example of the later is, can we all jump across a 16' chasm? Can the orcs following us jump across the same 16' chasm? What is a reasonable model for determining success/failure? Should it take into account the height and weight of the PCs? How exactly are those determined? OK, we can simply use STR as a basic estimate, good enough! Now, what about those orcs? It is basically up to the GM how good orcs are at jumping chasms, nobody really knows!

And then we start to get into the more involved things. How many days worth of rations do the orcs have stored in their caves? Can they endure a siege of a week, a month? Do they have a water supply in there? We just don't know. Will disease break out? How fast can they dig a back exit, will it be in time? I almost guarantee you these are not questions anyone has an answer to. Thus the GM will have to answer them when this 'CaW' scenario comes up, and what criteria will be used? There's no real reason to believe one answer is 'more fair' than another! It isn't realistic to answer either way, especially. I mean, we don't know enough about orc society or this tribe to say. I guarantee you B2, for example, cannot answer any of these questions, nor suggest any 'right answer'. The GM will decide, for purely gamist reasons, what happens next. There is no other answer. IMHO this is not a 'wargame'.

This is why I am always skeptical of the idea that the GM just plays the world neutrally. It just doesn't add up. It only really works if the GM has pre-established facts to fall back on. If the GM has already determined that the Orcs have a massive underground reservoir than short term attempts to cut off their water supply will definitely fail. But frequently events aren't predetermined.

I think most of the time we make decisions about what feels realistic or reasonable, but that's really just a big massive black box. For example, the GM may avoid certain decisions because they will seem to narratively convenient and therefore not feel realistic. Ultimately, like writing an alternative history, there's an aesthetic to these judgement calls.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is why I am always skeptical of the idea that the GM just plays the world neutrally. It just doesn't add up. It only really works if the GM has pre-established facts to fall back on. If the GM has already determined that the Orcs have a massive underground reservoir than short term attempts to cut off their water supply will definitely fail. But frequently events aren't predetermined.

Right, and it is QUITE possible, inevitable even, that SOME questions will have perfectly good answers. Or maybe there's a most logical and probably answer that you can work backwards to from something else. Usually though, there will not be, aside from a few specific questions that are typically focused on, like numbers of forces, their basic weapons and armor, stuff like that.

I think most of the time we make decisions about what feels realistic or reasonable, but that's really just a big massive black box. For example, the GM may avoid certain decisions because they will seem to narratively convenient and therefore not feel realistic. Ultimately, like writing an alternative history, there's an aesthetic to these judgement calls.

Right. And obviously nobody can say what considerations are paramount for any given GM or situation. Undoubtedly narrative logic and a type of consistency are good candidates, though I have seen quite my share of GMs who had no interest in those!

 

[S'mon]

This is why I am always skeptical of the idea that the GM just plays the world neutrally. It just doesn't add up. It only really works if the GM has pre-established facts to fall back on. If the GM has already determined that the Orcs have a massive underground reservoir than short term attempts to cut off their water supply will definitely fail. But frequently events aren't predetermined.

Surely the CAW GM will have a map of the orc lair, including any water sources? I certainly do, short of being completely caught off guard. In the latter case I have some generic lair maps.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Surely the CAW GM will have a map of the orc lair, including any water sources? I certainly do, short of being completely caught off guard. In the latter case I have some generic lair maps.

I think it is doubtful that this is a typical case. Nobody can say who carries out what practices in their world design, but surely if it isn't water, then the question could be food stores and utilization, or how much oil they have available, or what are their relations with the kobolds like? The world is a complex place. Surely definitive answers to all of these kinds of questions don't exist, nor probably even more than a small minority of the most commonly asked ones. I don't think B2, for example, could answer ANY of the above questions, about the orcs, or the Keep itself either for that matter.

 

[gatorized]

I pretty much disagree on all of the above. But I don’t find the need to reiterate the points I’ve already made against this line of argument.

None of your points have been sufficiently supported.

 

[gatorized]

No doubt. I’m saying I don’t think you are viewing what you are doing critically enough.

I don't think you have the slightest idea what constitutes "critically enough".