Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 8264935" data-attributes="member: 6801286"><p>I like combat as adventure, but I think combat as extermination doesn't quite capture the same tone as combat as war, or strategic combat.</p><p></p><p>The difference I am trying to get across, is the way a combat as war campaign plays differently from a combat as adventure campaign. Its not just all about the combat. In a war campaign, the battle and strategy loom over the entire campaign. The players have to constantly be mindful what the opposition is planning, and the DM plays the opposition as if literally putting armies into motion.</p><p></p><p>This doesn't mean that combat as war is a meatgrinder that the players are sure to lose in the long run, as some other posters have suggested. Any campaign can be a meatgrinder or a walk in the park, depending on how difficult the DM chooses to make it.</p><p></p><p>In a combat as war campaign the DM tries to play the opposition to the best of their capabilities, and with ruthless efficiency. The DM is making an effort to let the bad guys win. But the capabilities of the opposition are still limited by their relative strength when compared to the party, the amount of resources they have at their disposal, and time. And so, balancing a combat as war is not all that different from a combat as adventure campaign. The DM is still trying to create fair winnable scenarios. But 'winning' in this case, may not always be a simple case of walking up to the monster and hitting it on the head till it stops moving. It requires more thought and strategy.</p><p></p><p><strong>An example:</strong></p><p></p><p>In my campaign I had a tower on a peninsula. The tower had a powerful lens on top of it, that could be an important war asset, as it could set ships aflame that were in range. The big bad attempted to take this tower for himself with an all out assault. They invaded the tower through subterfuge and through a simultaneous underwater invasion into the subterranean harbor of the tower.</p><p></p><p>The players first had to fight against the forces that were already there, while trying to prevent reinforcements from overwhelming them. The fight was skewed against them on purpose. There was a real risk of defeat, which would mean either death or a forced retreat. The players might have had to sacrifice the harbor, or they might have had to abandon the tower entirely, after which it would fall into enemy hands.</p><p></p><p>In the end they secured the tower, but blew up the harbor. This meant the powerful lens weapon would be available to them during the next naval battle (and any battle to come), but the harbor was forever lost.</p><p></p><p><strong>Another example:</strong></p><p></p><p>The party received intel that the big bad was attempting to establish a base somewhere off the coast. This base would then create a portal to another dimension, allowing the big bad to more easily send its fleet to the surface. Meanwhile, there were also reports of an attack on an allied town. </p><p></p><p>The party had to make a choice. Would they come to the aid of the town and risk the enemy fortifying their base, with the added risk that the fight might be over by the time they arrived? Or would they commit to an early strike against the base while its defenses were low, but leave the town to fend for itself?</p><p></p><p>Losing the town would be a great loss of life, plus it would mean one less safe port for the players to rely on. They would also no longer get intel from the town on enemy movement if it was destroyed. </p><p></p><p>But allowing the enemy to build its base, would allow their enemy to make it strong enough to repel any attacks that they could currently launch against it. This would fortify the enemy's position in the region and greatly strengthen its fleet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaculata, post: 8264935, member: 6801286"] I like combat as adventure, but I think combat as extermination doesn't quite capture the same tone as combat as war, or strategic combat. The difference I am trying to get across, is the way a combat as war campaign plays differently from a combat as adventure campaign. Its not just all about the combat. In a war campaign, the battle and strategy loom over the entire campaign. The players have to constantly be mindful what the opposition is planning, and the DM plays the opposition as if literally putting armies into motion. This doesn't mean that combat as war is a meatgrinder that the players are sure to lose in the long run, as some other posters have suggested. Any campaign can be a meatgrinder or a walk in the park, depending on how difficult the DM chooses to make it. In a combat as war campaign the DM tries to play the opposition to the best of their capabilities, and with ruthless efficiency. The DM is making an effort to let the bad guys win. But the capabilities of the opposition are still limited by their relative strength when compared to the party, the amount of resources they have at their disposal, and time. And so, balancing a combat as war is not all that different from a combat as adventure campaign. The DM is still trying to create fair winnable scenarios. But 'winning' in this case, may not always be a simple case of walking up to the monster and hitting it on the head till it stops moving. It requires more thought and strategy. [b]An example:[/b] In my campaign I had a tower on a peninsula. The tower had a powerful lens on top of it, that could be an important war asset, as it could set ships aflame that were in range. The big bad attempted to take this tower for himself with an all out assault. They invaded the tower through subterfuge and through a simultaneous underwater invasion into the subterranean harbor of the tower. The players first had to fight against the forces that were already there, while trying to prevent reinforcements from overwhelming them. The fight was skewed against them on purpose. There was a real risk of defeat, which would mean either death or a forced retreat. The players might have had to sacrifice the harbor, or they might have had to abandon the tower entirely, after which it would fall into enemy hands. In the end they secured the tower, but blew up the harbor. This meant the powerful lens weapon would be available to them during the next naval battle (and any battle to come), but the harbor was forever lost. [b]Another example:[/b] The party received intel that the big bad was attempting to establish a base somewhere off the coast. This base would then create a portal to another dimension, allowing the big bad to more easily send its fleet to the surface. Meanwhile, there were also reports of an attack on an allied town. The party had to make a choice. Would they come to the aid of the town and risk the enemy fortifying their base, with the added risk that the fight might be over by the time they arrived? Or would they commit to an early strike against the base while its defenses were low, but leave the town to fend for itself? Losing the town would be a great loss of life, plus it would mean one less safe port for the players to rely on. They would also no longer get intel from the town on enemy movement if it was destroyed. But allowing the enemy to build its base, would allow their enemy to make it strong enough to repel any attacks that they could currently launch against it. This would fortify the enemy's position in the region and greatly strengthen its fleet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
Top