[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...

[JonWake]

I think we couldn't be more opposite in our tastes in gaming

I hope this doesn't sound insulting, but if that's the case, why bother with a table top game at all? A computer game will be more detailed for that play than any mere mortal? I'm not being facetious, it's a serious question.

 

[billd91]

Sure, someone can shoot that barrel of gunpowder behind the enemy, but they should expect it to do the same as one of their daily powers. They can set up a trap, but they should expect it to do no more than an encounter power. Even if it would "make sense" to have it be instant death.

And that would be totally a deal-breaker for me. I'm not willing to sacrifice that much simulation for a particular concept of game balance. And that's for any game system.

 

[Libramarian]

Combat as pre-3E: the PCs approach the bees but there’s BEES EVERYWHERE! GIANT BEES! With nasty poison saves! The PCs run for their lives since they don’t stand a chance against the bees in a fair fight. But the DM decides the bees are too fast! So the players argue since the wizard and monk are not wearing armor they should be able to out run the bees, but the DM says not these bees they are too fast! The party Wizard uses magic to try to set part of the forest on fire in order to provide enough smoke (bees hate smoke, right?) to cover their escape. Unfortunately the DM declares the forest is too wet to burn, but the party feels this is magic fire so moisture shouldn't hinder it. The DM agrees and the forest goes up in flames but it has little effect on the bees because the DM says these bees are not only super fast but they actually don't mind the smoke at all! Then the PCs regroup and swear bloody vengeance against the damn bees and DM. They think about just burning everything as usual and ending the campaign because this DM is constantly changing rules or making up rules since none exist, but decide that that might destroy the value of the honey and they won't be able to find another group to play with. So they decide to suck it up and make a plan that will hopefully be successful despite the ever shifting rules-scape, DM whims, and nebulous interpretations. Hopefully the DM and players won't spend too much time arguing about how to determine if the bees see them hiding or if the owl bear nearby can catch the monk as he runs away because they would really like to have some fun tonight and not spend hours making up or arguing over rules. They declare that anything could happen so it's almost impossible to succeed tactically unless the DM decides they are allowed to. The DM grins ghoulishly as he peers into his seemingly endless series of spiral notebooks that detail every aspect of his never ending sandbox campaign.

That's funny. But I always think: if you're smart enough to make fun of it, I'm sure you're smart enough to not run it that way, right...

 

[Mutak]

That's funny. But I always think: if you're smart enough to make fun of it, I'm sure you're smart enough to not run it that way, right...

As I was saying...

People who have had bad DMs often want to shackle the DM with more rules, but it misses the point. The rules were not the problem - the bad DM was. The answer should be to change the DM, not the rules, but it's easier to change books than it is to change people.

 

[Old Silver Dragon]

As I was saying...

People who have had bad DMs often want to shackle the DM with more rules, but it misses the point. The rules were not the problem - the bad DM was. The answer should be to change the DM, not the rules, but it's easier to change books than it is to change people.

Actually I think the issue exists on both sides of the screen. There's always been issues with poor players. As you note its easier to change the books than it is to tell one of your best friends that the hours of effort he put into the gaming session you're in the middle of were a waste of time because he sucks as a DM, or that because he's a pushy, argumentative player who's always gaming the rules that he ruined your session of a campaign.

I didn't DM much 3.5, never played 2e but I was a DM through BECMI and 1e and I've played and DM'd alot of 4e. I enjoyed almost every minute of every game I've ever played.

The battles and encounters I enjoyed DMing most were those that fitted more broadly into the CaS approach. Looking back I don't think I was ever comfortable with the CaW approach. The variability, volatility and complexity of that kind of combat conflicted with my desire to create a story and a setting - a least one I had a significant element of control over. There's nothing wrong with the CaW approach and I should be happier with player control of the story than I probably am, but what drives me to DM is the desire to let a story framework I created unfold.

Now where I do embrace the CaW approach is outside of encounters. I try to focus the non-combat elements of my games - the roleplaying or the skill challenges - around affecting the players world and environment. Humanoid army approaching? OK you've got two days what are you going to do? The choices the players make and the effectiveness of their actions influence the later combat with the humanoids. The resource tracking that many talk about is crucial here - if they repair the castle gates they can't train the militia. The effectiveness of both will play a part in the battle. Give the players choices, meaningful choices, let them affect the flow and direction of the story but I don't want to lose control of the story. Even here I suspect I'm still taking a CaS approach because I want to limit the extent of success or failure.

I like to know with a fair degree of certainty what's likely to happen in an encounter or skill challenge. The CaS approach gives me that element of control. It also allows me to play the game too. I can robustly engage in combat knowing that I'm unlikely to get a TPK. My object in each encounter is to fight the monsters I have as hard as possible in order that the PC's should always fear that result because it is absolutely possible almost every time. I get to enjoy the combats because I'm not holding back which is something I found myself doing at higher levels in CaW systems.

Obviously all psychoses are my own. Other gamers may get different results. But at least its how I approach a game.

 

[StarFyre]

Haakon1 nailed it pretty much to exactly what my goals are and what every DM i've played with (except 1) follows as campaign design goals...

THe only thing I'd add is:

1) enemy selection is to make sense (ie. i wouldn't have an orc cave, and suddenly have 5 owlbears, 2 dretches, and a wyrmling dragon UNLESS there was a very good in-story/in-orc purpose, for them all being their AND somehow the orcs (logically) got the ability to summon the dretches (which are tanar'ri demons and not 'normal' enemies you find wandering a planet).

2) let the players roleplay adhoc. If it's going well, don't even bother roll dice to see if they pass or fail...if they do well, let them have it but roll the dice to make them thing they could fail. (a couple of my players have done stage acting, so they are great roleplayers and simulation style players)

Regards,

Sanjay

 

[Alzrius]

Just a quick threadjack to say welcome to EN World, Old Silver Dragon! May you be with us so long that your name changes to Ancient Silver Dragon.

 

[Old Silver Dragon]

Thank you for the welcome!! I look forward to aging gracefully here

 

[Lanefan]

This is it exactly. It's always bothered me that I have a list of spells, combat maneuvers, feats, or whatever on my character sheet that I spent actual resources that required me to give up something to get(could have taken a different feat, a different spell, etc) that were constantly being equaled or exceeded by "creative play".

Why take a Fireball spell that does 10d6 points of damage to an enemy with 100 HP when the Rogue in the group can rig a trap that causes instant death to the same enemy(with no monetary cost since he improvised it with nearby items) when he walks through a door?

It always seemed like there was a baseline for combat effectiveness(hitpoints and damage) and that baseline could be bypassed entirely by things that weren't on the character sheet. It seemed to trivialize the mechanics of the game until the things written in the rules and on the character sheet were insignificant and not really part of the game.

Why worry about a baseline?

You've got a monster charging at you that wants to eat you for lunch, and it ain't gonna play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Why should you? Your only goal is to avoid/kill/pacify it in the safest-for-you manner possible - right?

You've got a camp of Ogres who don't know you're there - yet - but if they did they'd eat you for dinner; and if you don't do something about them they're going to eat the nearest village for tomorrow's lunch. Again, why worry about sportsmanship? Just wipe them out. All of them. By whatever means you have available.

Oh, and [MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION] - I can't XP you right now but excellent post about 10 back up the line from this one!

Lan-"kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out"-efan

 

[Savage Wombat]

Why worry about a baseline?

You've got a monster charging at you that wants to eat you for lunch, and it ain't gonna play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Why should you? Your only goal is to avoid/kill/pacify it in the safest-for-you manner possible - right?

You've got a camp of Ogres who don't know you're there - yet - but if they did they'd eat you for dinner; and if you don't do something about them they're going to eat the nearest village for tomorrow's lunch. Again, why worry about sportsmanship? Just wipe them out. All of them. By whatever means you have available.

Oh, and [MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION] - I can't XP you right now but excellent post about 10 back up the line from this one!

Lan-"kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out"-efan

I don't think you're following his point. No one is suggesting that sportsmanship in this context has anything to do with the ogre. It's to do with the rules context, the DM, and the other players.

I'll go to Champions for an example. If I want my character to be immortal and breathe in outer space, I have to pay 13 character points. If another player tries to tell the GM that his character is immortal, and doesn't need to breathe, based solely on the justification that "he's a robot", and the GM allows this, then I've just paid 13 points for something he got for free. I could have spent my 13 points on something else that makes my character more effective in another area.

It's very similar to whether you (personally) feel that good role-playing should trump a bad charisma score. It's a matter of taste in most games. But it's nothing to do with being "sportsmanlike" to a charging Ogre.