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

Sadras

Legend
My experience with sandbox-style play with the various editions very much aligns with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s.
It might also be the case that 5e is also more familiar (BECMI, 1e and 2e) to me.


With 3e I felt that combat could become too swingy and there were all these details the GM had to concern him/herself with.
With 4e I felt that combat needed to be properly structured, plus like S'mon said easy combats were just a complete waste of time. Therefore it is no surprise the 4e story-now crowd very much pushed the concept that combat needed to propel story - especially in a system that is known for becoming combat-sluggish.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
Therefore it is no surprise the 4e story-now crowd very much pushed the concept that combat needed to propel story

Yes I agree. I definitely think the Pemertonian story-now & scene-framed approach to 4e encounters works well, and I have said so repeatedly over the years. When I have run the published 4e WoTC adventures I tend to chop out huge chunks, getting rid of a lot of the unnecessary encounters and focusing on the dramatic elements. They work best when they tie in to the backstory & concerns of the PCs and there is something greater at stake.

My first 4e campaign was a sandbox using the Necromancer Games' Vault of Larin Karr adventure. It ran for 21 sessions, 2009-2011, level 1 - 7/8. I always thought it had major problems, and ended in a near-TPK.

My most successful 4e campaign, Loudwater 2011-2016, 103 sessions level 1-29, I thought of it as a superhero team comic series (Fantastic 4 is closest), and the best parts of the campaign featured a lot of recurring villains, heel-face turns, personal relationships, even a couple weddings. :)

More recently I attempted to use the lessons from Loudwater to run a more sandboxy 4e campaign, Nentir Vale - Fallcrest Saga 2017-2018, 26 sessions level 1-6/7. I used the 'Threats to the Nentir Vale' book along with some modular adventures. One thing I did was design around the Heroic Tier, taking Level 5 as a baseline since Level 5 stuff can be used by Level 1 to Level 9 PCs. It had successful elements but I could never get the sandbox to work as well as in other editions. Certainly the lack of encounter tables was a factor.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Yeh always found random adventures piss poor, lacking in imagination and lazy.

Here is my counter complaint a game that worked via random tables sucks like a movie directed by a robot, NOR do I think it ever worked in D&D even where it was presented.
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't think that the 20-50 bandits encounter is a particularly big problem for 4e - the same devices that are used to manage this in classic D&D (negotiation, evasion tables, etc) can be used in 4e, mostly mediated via the skill challenge rules.

But my own view would be that procedural-driven play probably doesn't bring out 4e's strongest features. Or another way to think about it would be: when you have the skill challenge system, why would you use more "traditional" procedural-driven play to determine what happens, what is encountered, etc?

And coming at this issue from a different angle: I'm using Classic Traveller to run a somewhat story-now-ish game at present, while also following nearly all the proceduralist procedures (the one exception is that I took a different, more "as needed", approach to establishing the star map). But I think the Traveller procedures are different from (eg) AD&D, and more of the results (worlds; starships; persons, including patron) are more apt to be framed into an ongoing story-now-type context than is the case in classic D&D, where the story-now significance of (say) giant rats can be really pretty hard to establish.
 

I don't think that the 20-50 bandits encounter is a particularly big problem for 4e - the same devices that are used to manage this in classic D&D (negotiation, evasion tables, etc) can be used in 4e, mostly mediated via the skill challenge rules.

But my own view would be that procedural-driven play probably doesn't bring out 4e's strongest features. Or another way to think about it would be: when you have the skill challenge system, why would you use more "traditional" procedural-driven play to determine what happens, what is encountered, etc?

And coming at this issue from a different angle: I'm using Classic Traveller to run a somewhat story-now-ish game at present, while also following nearly all the proceduralist procedures (the one exception is that I took a different, more "as needed", approach to establishing the star map). But I think the Traveller procedures are different from (eg) AD&D, and more of the results (worlds; starships; persons, including patron) are more apt to be framed into an ongoing story-now-type context than is the case in classic D&D, where the story-now significance of (say) giant rats can be really pretty hard to establish.

Right, most things you encounter in Traveler are going to be pretty well integrated into the overall milieu and there are a lot of 'hooks' available to tie the PCs into that as well. So its likely you can fit those puzzle pieces together. Exceptions might include randomly generated alien life forms or something where "a lurker predator jumps you" might not really be fitting at a given moment.

With 4e it highly depends on the sort of things the players are interested in doing vs what sorts of stuff can be randomly generated (and given that the GM is going to have to come up with the 'random' tables it is more likely to mesh). If the players want to build a freehold, then it wouldn't be hard at all to come up with a list of random "this has to be cleared out or dealt with somehow" list.

I had a section of my first campaign that has a list of 'random' encounters, there are about 10 of them. They can only happen within a certain forest and the PC's goal was to search the forest, find the evil wizard, and deal with him. There were also fixed locations. That worked reasonably well, though I didn't try to stick to random encounters very religiously. 3 or 4 of them came up and they ended up tying into the story fairly well, but of course they were DESIGNED with that in mind! Definitely a bit different than what old-school hexcrawl was generally built to do (though technically you could follow the DMG's table structure and do it).
 

pemerton

Legend
I had a section of my first campaign that has a list of 'random' encounters, there are about 10 of them. They can only happen within a certain forest and the PC's goal was to search the forest, find the evil wizard, and deal with him. There were also fixed locations. That worked reasonably well, though I didn't try to stick to random encounters very religiously. 3 or 4 of them came up and they ended up tying into the story fairly well, but of course they were DESIGNED with that in mind! Definitely a bit different than what old-school hexcrawl was generally built to do (though technically you could follow the DMG's table structure and do it).
Early in my main 4e campaign I was adapting Night's Dark Terror. I used its random enconter table to build the elements of a skill challenge as the PCs moved through the forest looking for a goblin stronghold. A similar though not identical idea to yours.
 

S'mon

Legend
I just started running 5e Primeval Thule, which is a more Dramatist type setting in orientation, designed to create "thud and blunder" type swords and sorcery fiction reminiscent of the more lurid pulps, Marvel's Savage Sword of Conan, and suchlike. The GM's Companion has some nice wandering monster tables but I find I use them more to get a sense of what the world looks like in game terms, rather than rolling them in-play. Eg I'll pregenerate a merchant ship & crew or a beastman warband using the tables, but in play I'll decide or roll for when those specific things appear rather than completely randomly. This approach also worked well in 4e (although 4e lacked encounter tables, in places it did have indications of what encounter groups might look like).

Conversely when running 5e Wilderlands sandbox, I find proper random tables help procedurally create the world in play, when used in conjunction with the material already placed on the highly detailed hex maps. So eg at one point the PC was travelling cross-country towards Actun over a wild forest, when I rolled (using the XGTE tables) an encounter with an ancient green dragon (PC escaped!). Now we know there's an ancient green dragon in that forest west of Actun, which will become part of the world going forward.
 

blaidd31204

Villager
…and how to reconcile them in 5ed.

On another forum I’ve been running in circles with fans of other editions about different D&D play styles and how different editions support them, but I think I’ve finally nailed a key difference that sheds an enormous amount of light about so many disagreements about 5ed development.

Without quite realizing it, people are having the exact same debate that constantly flares up on MMORPG blogs about PvP: should combat resemble sport (as in World of Tanks PvP or arena combat in any game) or should it resemble war (as in Eve PvP or open world combat in any game).

People who want Combat as Sport want fun fights between two (at least roughly) evenly matched sides. They hate “ganking” in which one side has such an enormous advantage (because of superior numbers, levels, strategic surprise, etc.) that the fight itself is a fait accompli. They value combat tactics that could be used to overcome the enemy and fair rules adhered to by both sides rather than looking for loopholes in the rules. Terrain and the specific situation should provide spice to the combat but never turn it into a turkey shoot. They tend to prefer arena combat in which there would be a pre-set fight with (roughly) equal sides and in which no greater strategic issues impinge on the fight or unbalance it.

The other side of the debate is the Combat as War side. They like Eve-style combat in which in a lot of fights, you know who was going to win before the fight even starts and a lot of the fun comes in from using strategy and logistics to ensure that the playing field is heavily unbalanced in your favor. The greatest coup for these players isn’t to win a fair fight but to make sure that the fight never happens (the classic example would be inserting a spy or turning a traitor within the enemy’s administration and crippling their infrastructure so they can’t field a fleet) or is a complete turkey shoot. The Combat as Sport side hates this sort of thing with a passion since the actual fights are often one-sided massacres or stand-offs that take hours.

I think that these same differences hold true in D&D, let me give you an example of a specific situation to illustrate the differences: the PCs want to kill some giant bees and take their honey because magic bee honey is worth a lot of money. Different groups approach the problem in different ways.

Combat as Sport: the PCs approach the bees and engage them in combat using the terrain to their advantage, using their abilities intelligently and having good teamwork. The fighter chooses the right position to be able to cleave into the bees while staying outside the radius of the wizard’s area effect spell, the cleric keeps the wizard from going down to bee venom and the rogue sneaks up and kills the bee queen. These good tactics lead to the PCs prevailing against the bees and getting the honey. The DM congratulates them on a well-fought fight.

Combat as War: 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 bees are too fast! So the party Wizard uses magic to set part of the forest on fire in order to provide enough smoke (bees hate smoke, right?) to cover their escape. Then the PCs regroup and swear bloody vengeance against the damn bees. They think about just burning everything as usual, but decide that that might destroy the value of the honey. So they make a plan: the bulk of the party will hide out in trees at the edge of the bee’s territory and set up piles of oil soaked brush to light if the bees some after them and some buckets of mud. Meanwhile, the party monk will put on a couple layers of clothing, go to the owl bear den and throw rocks at it until it chases him. He’ll then run, owl bear chasing him, back to where the party is waiting where they’ll dump fresh mud on him (thick mud on thick clothes keeps bees off, right?) and the cleric will cast an anti-poison spell on him. As soon as the owl bear engages the bees (bears love honey right?) the monk will run like hell out of the area. Hopefully the owl bear and the bees will kill each other or the owl bear will flee and lead the bees away from their nest, leaving the PCs able to easily mop up any remaining bees, take the honey and get the hell out of there. They declare that nothing could possibly go wrong as the DM grins ghoulishly.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Some D&D players love the tactical elements of the game and well-fought evenly matched combat within it while other players prefer the logistical and strategic elements and if only end up in evenly matched fights if something has gone horribly wrong. These two kinds of play styles also emulate different kinds of fantasy literature with Combat as Sport hewing to heroic fantasy tropes while the Combat as War side prefer D&D to feel like a chapter of The Black Company. This was really driven home by one comment from a Combat as Sport partisan talking about how ridiculous and comedic it would be PCs to smuggle in all kinds of stuff in a bag of holding so they could use cheap tactics like “Sneak attack with a ballista!” However, sneak attacking with a ballista is exactly what happens in Chapter Forty-Eight of Shadows Linger (the second Black Company book) and the Combat as War side think that’s exactly the sort of thing that D&D should be all about.

While either form of D&D can be played with any edition, it works better with some editions than others. A lot of people have played TSR editions from more of a Combat as Sport Mindset and a lot of later TSR products seem to consist of trying to frog march poor Croaker into heroic fantasy, but TSR-D&D mostly sucks at Combat as Sport. It’s not easy to gauge what would be a good fair fun fight for a given party and the same fight could end up as a cakewalk or a TPK, melee combat is repetitive, there’s one-hit kills etc. Also a lot of elements of TSR-D&D design that drive Combat as Sport people crazy, really tie into the Combat as War mindset. Things like tracking rations, torch usage, rolling for wandering monsters, etc. are important for this kind of gameplay since they make time a scarce resource, which is vital for strategic and logistical gameplay since if the players have all the time in the world so many strategic and logistical constraints get removed and without those constraints you get all kinds of problems cropping up (most notably the 15 minute adventuring day). As Gygax says, in all caps no less “YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT” (DMG page 37), which sounds like crazy moon logic for people who like Combat as Sport gameplay but is a central factor in making Combat as War gameplay work.

With 3ed the game shifted a bit towards Combat as Sport and then shifted a good bit more with 4ed (although you can still certainly run 4ed as a Combat as War game with heavy use of things like rituals, but the main thrust of the game is towards Combat as Sport). In 4ed it’s easy to tell what’s a good fair fight for a given party and combat rarely goes in a direction that the DM completely didn’t expect and there’s tons of fun combat variety. However, the 4ed focus on balancing combat at the encounter level rather than the adventure level (or just not balancing it at all and running a sandbox) runs directly counter to Combat as War gameplay. In order for a combat encounter to be well-balanced nothing that happens outside of that encounter can matter too much. This means that in order to get proper encounter balance, the impact of strategic and logistical gameplay must be muted as if having stuff that happens outside of the combat make a huge difference in the difficulty of the encounter, then there’s no way to guarantee fun balanced fights. Hence Encounter Powers, hence Healing Surges (sure starting combat with half of your healing surges sucks but not as much as starting it with half of you hit points), hence not having any classes that are designed to be below par at tactical combat, hence a lack of abilities that are useless in some fights but “I win” buttons in other fights, hence a lot of Sports and War dislike for the few bits of 4ed design that don’t fit well with balancing combat at the encounter level (notably Daily Powers). Of course 4ed is not doesn’t do this 100%, but it comes a lot closer than any other edition. However, the whole line of thinking runs counter to Combat as War thinking, the whole POINT of Combat as War gameplay is to make the playing field as unbalanced as possible in the favor of the party, so mechanics that are built around balancing combat at the encounter level just get in the way. In addition, 4ed removes a lot of items from the Combat as War gamer’s bag of tricks and it’s much harder to rat:):):):) the opposition with 4ed powers than 1ed spells, since they’re specifically written to be resistant to be used for rat:):):):)ing and the lack of specific information about specifically how 4ed powers work in real-world terms make it hard for Combat as War players to use them to screw over the opposition instead of beating them in a fair sportsmanlike match since it’s hard to figure out exactly how to use 4ed powers for off-label purposes.

But probably most importantly, 4ed combat just takes too damn long for Combat as War players. If you’re going to spend your time doing sneaky rat bastard Black Company stuff before combat starts, then having combat take a long time is just taking time away from the fun bits of play. Also if combat takes a long time you just can’t have the sort of attrition-based gameplay since there just isn’t time to have 5 combats in five hours with plenty of time for other stuff aside from combat and a break for pizza as well. 4ed thrives on big flashy set piece battles and that doesn’t work well with Combat as War gameplay since the best kind of combat for those players is having the enemy die like a chump in the first round (with a good admixture of the PCs running and screaming in terror in the first round).

OK, now how can we reconcile these two different play styles in 5ed. Having the tactical rules be an add-on module for the Combat as Sport people is an important first step, this lets the people who like that have fun with it while the Combat as War people can use the simpler combat rules to get combat over quickly. But I think that the Combat as War people could use a DM-side add-on module as well with ideas to emphasize strategic and logistical thinking (the “Fantasy :):):):)ing Vietnam” Module basically). How monsters are written up also matters a lot. In the getting the honey from the bees adventure, specifics of monster ecology and biology don’t matter that much for the Combat as Sport side, but just look at how much they matter in the Combat as War side (does smoke keep giant bees away? how much territory will one hive of giant bees patrol? what time of day is the owl bear at home in its cave? do owl bears love honey? will thick clothes and mud help against the bees? will the owl bear fight the bees or run away? how far will the bees chase the bear if it runs). Of course the DM will have to answer a lot of these questions, but monster write-ups can help a lot. Finally, the spells that appeal to each side are different with the Combat as Sport side’s favorite spells being boring to the Combat as War side and the Combat as War side’s favorite spells being far too quirky, situational and unbalancing for the Combat as Sport side. Hopefully some ways will be found to reconcile the two sides.

tldr:

Combat as Sport: valuing the separate roles of the quarterback, linebacker and wide receiver and what plays you can use to win a competitive game.
Combat as War: being too busy laying your end zone with caltrops, dousing the midfield with lamp oil, blackmailing the ref, spiking the other team’s water and bribing key members of the other team to throw the game to worry about all of those damn squiggles on the blackboard.

Or:

Combat as Sport:
[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]lC6dgtBU6Gs[/MEDIA] Bride Sword Fight - YouTube[/ame]

Combat as War:
[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]bwGg_F7s7xg[/MEDIA] Jones - Swordman Vs. Indiana - YouTube[/ame]

Which one you like makes a massive difference in how you play D&D and what sort of rules you want for 5ed. How to deal with this?
This is a great breakdown! Thanks!
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top