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
*TTRPGs General
RPG Combat: Sport or War?
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="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7727784" data-attributes="member: 2656"><p>One of the things that attracted me to RPGs in the first place were the rules. They varied in quality but at their best (IMO) were clear rules in black and white that allowed in-game situations to be resolved with some semblance of objectivity. </p><p></p><p>So one of the reasons I tend to dislike "Combat as War" is that it often involves skipping the rules as written and moving problem resolution to a metagame layer of direct negotiation with the referee. There are elements of no holds barred where individuals can attempt to coerce the other participants into moving the game in the direction they personally desire, regardless of their wishes. I prefer mutally agreed "Rules of Engagement" to attempting to evolve such in a competitive environment mixing role-playing and individual tastes.</p><p></p><p>There's also an element of seeking out broken rules and exploiting them which is more associated with "War" than "Sport". </p><p></p><p>I see it as a paradox that in actual wargames, so much effort is devoted to set-up, initial deployment, setting limitations and victory and loss conditions, whereas all that is associated with "Combat as Sport" while "Combat as War" is supposedly freer and less limited. In the latter case the game can become about how to reframe the problem so that your faction is obviously on the winning side, and therefore sidestep as much as possible the conventional rules layer, which is the part I find fun.</p><p></p><p>I see the "War" camp often refusing to discuss things because "it's too metagame" or such, and leaving the group "market" to evolve an answer over time. From my point of view, RPGs are always artificial, refusal to talk about the metagame or "why are we playing" questions doesn't automatically produce a less artificial or more authentic game, it just ignores or actively avoids addressing these questions, which I find are very important in in any long-running campaign.</p><p></p><p>So much of this is actually decided by the group of players you end up with and your own personal tastes. My current group are far closer to the "Combat as Sport" side of things, my 3.x group had wargames experience and were maybe half way along the "Sport-War" continuum. If I had a group closer to the "War" camp in tastes, I would drift my game closer to that direction to suit their interests.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 7727784, member: 2656"] One of the things that attracted me to RPGs in the first place were the rules. They varied in quality but at their best (IMO) were clear rules in black and white that allowed in-game situations to be resolved with some semblance of objectivity. So one of the reasons I tend to dislike "Combat as War" is that it often involves skipping the rules as written and moving problem resolution to a metagame layer of direct negotiation with the referee. There are elements of no holds barred where individuals can attempt to coerce the other participants into moving the game in the direction they personally desire, regardless of their wishes. I prefer mutally agreed "Rules of Engagement" to attempting to evolve such in a competitive environment mixing role-playing and individual tastes. There's also an element of seeking out broken rules and exploiting them which is more associated with "War" than "Sport". I see it as a paradox that in actual wargames, so much effort is devoted to set-up, initial deployment, setting limitations and victory and loss conditions, whereas all that is associated with "Combat as Sport" while "Combat as War" is supposedly freer and less limited. In the latter case the game can become about how to reframe the problem so that your faction is obviously on the winning side, and therefore sidestep as much as possible the conventional rules layer, which is the part I find fun. I see the "War" camp often refusing to discuss things because "it's too metagame" or such, and leaving the group "market" to evolve an answer over time. From my point of view, RPGs are always artificial, refusal to talk about the metagame or "why are we playing" questions doesn't automatically produce a less artificial or more authentic game, it just ignores or actively avoids addressing these questions, which I find are very important in in any long-running campaign. So much of this is actually decided by the group of players you end up with and your own personal tastes. My current group are far closer to the "Combat as Sport" side of things, my 3.x group had wargames experience and were maybe half way along the "Sport-War" continuum. If I had a group closer to the "War" camp in tastes, I would drift my game closer to that direction to suit their interests. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
RPG Combat: Sport or War?
Top