D&D 5E [Very Long Indeed] Reconciling Combat as War and Combat as Sports in 5ed

[Neonchameleon]

I think the exact opposite is true. For CAS to be enjoyable you need a certain amount of combat rules to keep things interesting. For CAW you can leave more to DM adjudication and let the dice decide. Either can of course be supported by very complex systems like GURPS, but how much of those rules is actually relevant to the CAW/CAS distinction?

You can think what you want. But are you arguing that either (a) Wushu is CAW rather than CAS or (b) Wushu is other than extremely rules light?

If you're not aware of Wushu, you have four stats you determine ranging from 2 to 5 (with one being your weak stat). The combat mechanic is that you roll a number of dice equal to the number of elements in your description up to the scene cap, and each one equal or under your stat is a success either for attacking or blocking (you declare which dice is which in advance). You have three qi points (read hit points) and an unblocked attack does one hit point.

And ... that is pretty much the whole ruleset. Nothing like feats in there. It produces some of the best high action combat and narrative description going.

 

[BryonD]

It produces some of the best high action combat and narrative description going.

That is an objectively false statement.

The system you described provides a rather narrow range of potential numeric outcomes.

The group of players may assign on of that descriptions of the best high action combat and narrative that they have ever experienced. But the system is not what is providing that.

Someone else can come along and say that they roleplay with a deck of cards and resolve everything by a simple system oh high draw. And they could say that they get an EVEN BETTER high action and narrative experience.

But the thing is, narrative description and mechanical resolution of cause and effect are two separate pieces that can be connected but can also be completely unconnected. In the system you described they are NEARLY completely unrelated. Which may be a hell of a lot more fun to you than a system based on modeling.

But in the end the only mechanics significance is which of the four slots a given action is resolved under. Every possible action is mechanically nothing more than that. There is ZERO high action there. It is just a slightly more complicated high draw resolution system with a side order of rock paper scissors. And it remains completely understandable and even praiseworthy that some people may find that keeping a system out of the way frees them up to just focus on their own story telling and thus creates a great result.

But don't assign credit where it isn't due.

If I was going to play that way, I'd go ahead and dispense with the system altogether. Everyone simply describes their character and describes actions and the GM resolves based on the descriptions. To me that would be vastly better than going 97% of the way to that but keeping four slots.

But I prefer for attacking with a rapier to be objectively reproducibly distinct from attacking with an axe in a range of ways more sophisticated than simply a STR slot check vs a DEX clost check.

But that is just my preference.
The rich model is a HUGE part of the fun.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think we have different understandings of CAW...I considered my comment to be pretty self evident -- in CAW play, more play happens outside the rules. Therefore you don't need as many rules.

Idk maybe I am the odd one out here. I was thinking of CAW as literally meaning play where you break or skirt the rules. Or at least expected procedure.

It's breaking expected procedure, not breaking the rules. Which means that unless you want to just freeform the rules need to be large enough to handle a vast array of unexpected procedure.

 

[Hassassin]

You can think what you want. But are you arguing that either (a) Wushu is CAW rather than CAS or (b) Wushu is other than extremely rules light?

I haven't played Wushu, but in my experience rules light systems tend to let groups gravitate to the kind of play they are used to or find fun. If you prefer CAS and use such a system maybe it seems to support that; whereas if you prefer CAW it seems to support that. The same is true with regards to other kinds of play style differences.

 

[Hassassin]

It's breaking expected procedure, not breaking the rules. Which means that unless you want to just freeform the rules need to be large enough to handle a vast array of unexpected procedure.

Any procedure for which there are detailed rules *becomes* expected procedure. Even if you just have the six ability scores and modifiers, those rules allow you to interpret pretty much any action you can imagine as a check vs. a DC.

Personally, I find things typically labeled "fluff" often more useful for CAW play than explicit rules. For example, random tables (encounter, NPC, weather...) aren't rules. Neither are monster ecologies or campaign setting history. The rules just need to support some core CAW issues (including meaningful attrition and resource management), give some ideas and examples, and then get out of the way.