Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Savage Wombat]

Once again I come back to the thread, and I see that despite best efforts to actually talk about the concepts involved - and some interesting ideas - "Combat as Means and Combat as Ends" has a lot of potential - certain voices keep maintaining this incredibly hostile tone of derision and name-calling. As if you don't want to have a civil discussion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Once again I come back to the thread, and I see that despite best efforts to actually talk about the concepts involved - and some interesting ideas - "Combat as Means and Combat as Ends" has a lot of potential - certain voices keep maintaining this incredibly hostile tone of derision and name-calling. As if you don't want to have a civil discussion.

A civil discussion can only start when you accept that even if it wasn't what was intended, the Combat as Sport/Combat as War dichotomy is inherently uncivil.

 

[Savage Wombat]

A civil discussion can only start when you accept that even if it wasn't what was intended, the Combat as Sport/Combat as War dichotomy is inherently uncivil.

It is not inherently uncivil; you have decided that the phrase "Combat as Sport" is somehow a slap at your game (even when you don't play that way) and react to the term with hostility.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is not inherently uncivil; you have decided that the phrase "Combat as Sport" is somehow a slap at your game (even when you don't play that way) and react to the term with hostility.

There is nothing wrong with "Combat as Sport" as a term. It's the Sport/War dichotomy that's uncivil. My problem is quite explicitly with the War side of that that's inaccurate and self-aggrandizing.

 

[Hussar]

I think you've really tried to push the description of Combat as War into an entirely ridiculous direction. What does the number of random encounters have to do with Combat as War again? Why would having set encounters mean that it's not Combat as War? Combat as War is really more of an attitude about solving the conflict (violent or otherwise) that encounters (whether random or set) pose and the openness to be able to put any plan that appears effective into place - even if that means upending the expectations of the encounter.

As far as the equally as weird side debate about real-world rules of warfare, it's helpful to note what those rules attempt or attempted to do - and that's control warfare on a particular ideology's terms. Ultimately, when you compare with a realist view of warfare (such as that described by Thucydides) you come to realize that rules of warfare whether based on Chivalry or Geneva Conventions mainly serve to try to turn War into Sport. And to do so on terms favorable to the more powerful actor - the strongest individual warrior, the best equipped warrior, the nation with the biggest army.

As I understand it, Combat as War is the idea that encounters are framed in such a way that the players have to search for any number of means to resolve the combat in such a way that they have the greatest advantage possible. Is this not correct? Additionally, CaW includes the concept that the scenarios are largely random - that we are not scripting encounters in such a way that they become a sport, following pre-determined paths.

It is this randomness that is supposed to make the game more interesting, is it not? It's the unpredictable nature of the scenarios that make them Combat as War. If the scenarios are pre-scripted, then they are very predictable, and always have been in every edition of D&D. If the DM is crafting each encounter with an eye to how this will play out, then it's no longer CaW.

Thus, random encounters are a very integral part of CaW. Without that random element, you might as well be playing a sport. It's not D&D as Poker if the DM is stacking the deck in such a way that he knows where and when every encounter will occur.

On the other part, I actually agree with you. Delving into this largely semantic wank about what "war" means isn't helping anything.

 

[Savage Wombat]

There is nothing wrong with "Combat as Sport" as a term. It's the Sport/War dichotomy that's uncivil. My problem is quite explicitly with the War side of that that's inaccurate and self-aggrandizing.

Your use of the phrase "self-aggrandizing" demonstrates my point. You are projecting an emotional justification onto the side you oppose.

Stick with arguing "inaccurate" and you'd be better off.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your use of the phrase "self-aggrandizing" demonstrates my point. You are projecting an emotional justification onto the side you oppose.

Stick with arguing "inaccurate" and you'd be better off.

I might be prepared to back down to "condescending" which the dichotomy certainly is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your use of the phrase "self-aggrandizing" demonstrates my point. You are projecting an emotional justification onto the side you oppose.

Stick with arguing "inaccurate" and you'd be better off.

I've shown how inaccurate it is at some length, but you seem to have ignored that entirely.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I might be prepared to back down to "condescending" which the dichotomy certainly is.

Instead of backing down - why don't you try saying something like "I feel the term Combat as War is inherently condescending/self-aggrandizing" and explain why? Then people can actually discuss what you think is wrong with it. Assertion is not argument, he asserts.

Like so many of these kind of discussions, the negative reaction some posters have for the idea under debate gets immediately ascribed to malice or animus on the part of the original poster.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Like so many of these kind of discussions, the negative reaction some posters have for the idea under debate gets immediately ascribed to malice or animus on the part of the original poster.

That's a hypocritical position, though, Savage, and I mean that in a non-hostile way, just that it is. You're ascribing negative motives to others without proof because you believe they ascribe negative motivations to others without proof.

I mean, does more need to be said on how inaccurate combat-as-war is? It's very inaccurate. Combat-as-sport is pretty inaccurate too. Both push the terms to extreme positions, too, which as I've discussed, are unhelpful to a reasoned discussion.