NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8264383" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, but who really knows how that would play out based on various PC actions and results? If the PCs killed half the orcs, would the bugbears and goblins join up and finish them off? Are the orcs cunning enough to leave their treasure and withdraw, so that said bugbears and goblins are caught in the act by the return of the party and exterminated by an attack in the rear while battling the orcs? Would the orcs maybe send an emissary to the party to set this up as an actual plan? Could PCs initiate such a plan, and what would the terms be? I mean, those are mostly RP considerations, and I think the game can kind of handle those, but what about logistics? That element is in fact so unrealistic as to be impossible to even talk about IMHO, but such little facts are provided about the whole region that it is hard to really say. Again, you can make up answers to anything, but there's no 'neutrality' to base them on. Every answer will be favorable or disfavorable to someone. Even simply saying "well, half the time I'll answer the way that is easier for the party, half the time I'll go against them" is a GAMIST ANSWER. In the real world, usually, things simply aren't equally favorable to all sides such that Waterloo happens. Realism would be "usually one side or the other gets crushed like a bug", but that's not a good game. My point is, the idea of CAW as some sort of realistic/verisimilitudinous practice is hot air. It is just as gamist and fixed and arbitrary as any set piece battle you guys want to call 'CAS'. There is no fundamental difference between the two, only that combat in one is a simpler affair of running a single fight on a grid, and the other is a more extended narrative of tricks and ploys (or whatever). That's a fair distinction, but it is stylistic, not substantive.</blockquote>

Verification