Worlds of Design: A Worthy End?

Is combat an end in itself, or is it a means to an end; and is that a worthy end?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

War is not a means to an end, it is the end, whereas politics is merely the hiatus between wars. - Norman Finkelstein

Why Are We Fighting?​

Long-term tabletop gamers may often ask themselves: is combat an end in itself, or is it a means to an end; and is that a worthy end? With many rulesets the answer is more or less built-in: combat is the center of all activity in a category that originated as wargames. But that doesn’t make it an end in itself, and the focus doesn’t mean there is a worthy end.

An answer in games can often be related to lethality in combat. The more lethal combat is for the player characters, the more they’re going to look for non-combat ways to solve their problems. If combat is hardly ever or never lethal, most players will indulge in combat whenever they feel like it.

It’s quite common in Dungeons & Dragons and its variants for combat to be a means to gathering treasure. Combat is a means rather than an end, but is the end a “worthy” one?

Combat to gain experience points (by killing “monsters”) becomes an end as well as a means. Getting experience points isn’t something we think about in the real world. For a warrior, it could be equated to “being successful in life.” Yet we can ask, as a means, is combat for experience points a worthy goal? For the more violently oriented the answer is probably yes, for those less violently oriented the answer will often be no.

Fourth edition D&D combat appeared to be an end in itself because the “strategic” parts of the game were largely stripped away – seemingly leaving combat and little else. Of course, as with most any RPG, the GM could work to restore the non-combat parts of the game if desired.

Are You Worthy?​

The initial question is not solely, end vs means, but also involves a means to a worthy end. This could be posed as a mission-oriented end rather than an essentially selfish end. This is all a matter of motivation.

The “murder-hobo” trope exists for a reason. Killing everything and taking its stuff has a long history in tabletop games, starting with Dungeons & Dragons but not ending there. The original rules certainly didn’t do anything to dissuade those players from believing that combat was the primary solution to every obstacle.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Treasure-grubbing or XP point chasing are essentially selfish goals. Characters can be soldiers fighting against evil, not the mercenary searching for treasure. Integrity, doing “the right thing,” and other virtues come with it. The soldier is on a mission, a mission that means more than money or XP-grubbing, more than mere mayhem or slaughter.

Yet how many players care whether they behave in a “worthy” manner or have a worthy goal? How many worry about integrity or doing good works? I don’t know nowadays, but insofar as the Chaotic Neutral jerk stereotype exists, I suspect there are still those who play this way.

If it’s just a dungeon crawl, the mercenary and soldier might seem similar at first. This is where setting and story come into play; if there are moral consequences for actions, the distinction between soldier and mercenary becomes clear. It’s what happens after – in town, in the tavern, amongst civilized folk – where the difference comes into sharp relief. Mercenaries who have no tether to society but personal power are just as likely to murder the innkeeper as they are to pay him.

Does this matter? If your game never goes beyond dungeon crawling, maybe not. But for campaigns that want to explore more than just what’s gained at the point of a sword, the nuance can make for more interesting play.

You Turn: What is the purpose of combat in your games?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fourth edition D&D combat appeared to be an end in itself because the “strategic” parts of the game were largely stripped away – seemingly leaving combat and little else. Of course, as with most any RPG, the GM could work to restore the non-combat parts of the game if desired.

They weren't "stripped away." They were put into the healing surge, ritual casting, and skill challenge mechanics, and to a lesser extent the player-authored quest concept. People just tried to ignore those parts because they looked new and different and thus were unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Rules did not dictate roleplay because players at the time had made it abundantly clear that rules with even a whiff of roleplay in them were anathema (the "Golden Wyvern Adept" debacle.) This, of course, was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where the overall player base would never have been happy no matter what WotC did.

Apart from this, however, your post is a good one...if we extend things past merely considering what the players find worthy, considering not just that, but also whether the designers have made combat a worthy end.

From the player-goals side of things, combat is almost always a means. A means to growth, a means to material wealth (which acts as means to yet other ends), to safety, to convenience, etc. However, for some players, it really is also an end in and of itself: they enjoy the challenge of combat, the risk of injury or death or some other form of loss, how pointed and undeniable the threat is, etc. To them, combat is a key testing point, where their skills are not merely allowed to shime but truly required to shine. Strategists, "powergamers," instigators, and adrenaline junkies are all examples of folks who may feel this way about combat. To be tested is, itself, enjoyable and rewarding.

But, critically, the tests must actually be good enough! If the tests are dull or, worse, hollow/fake, then all the value such players derive from the experience evaporates. This leads to two requirements. First, the combats must be sufficiently well-made, such that those who value combat for itself can appreciate the quality of the design. Second, the challenge of combat must be sincere: smoke-and-mirrors, tampering, fake difficulty, or concealed foregone conclusions (whether victory or defeat) all spoil the experience irrevocably. These same ideas (good design and sincere execution) apply regardless of what game design area you consider, this is just their application to combat specifically.

If combat is to be a significant part of a game—if it is going to be a "pillar" as 5e terms it—then it should be designed, as much as possible, to be a worthy end in and of itself. Again, this applies to any such "pillar," if the term is to have any meaning at all, but we are focused on applying this to combat here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody is asking anyone to die. Do what you want in your game, ain't nobody coming to kill you.

And really, dying for a game... is a bit hyperbolic, hey what?

The idea of dying on a hill is a known metaphor. No need to pretend anyone is taking it literally.

 

[Umbran]

Some might consider it a truly worthy ending.

Then please have that ending somewhere else. Dying on hills is not conducive to civil discussion.

 

[Umbran]

The idea of dying on a hill is a known metaphor. No need to pretend anyone is taking it literally.

No need to pretend I am, either. But to be clear - "I will die on that hill," is equivalent to, "I will be unreasonable in discussion about this," and that's a known problem. No need to pretend that it isn't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, this is a player question, and unless they are very new at RPGs, they should be able to answer it, at Session Zero - it is at the root of play expectations and matching playstyles.

Furthermore, "having fun" is a useless goal. It is like saying that a school can fall back on the "learn information" goal, or that an army can fall back on the "win battles" goal. Yes, it is desirable to have fun, to learn, and to win battles. But to make that your actual, stated goal, the plan of action? It is so uselessly unspecific as to actually hamper your ability to achieve the stated end.

This is why it's so infuriating to me how often people come into discussions like this with unhelpful "well fun should be the goal, not [whatever]" arguments. It's the antithesis of productive for both the conversation and for actual design or strategy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No need to pretend I am, either. But to be clear - "I will die on that hill," is equivalent to, "I will be unreasonable in discussion about this," and that's a known problem. No need to pretend that it isn't.

It's equivalent to, "I'm not changing my opinion on this issue". Not quite the same thing, just a statement that the poster will continue to champion their point of view. You can't just expect everyone in a discussion to be open to changing their mind about any given issue. People are only occasionally open to changing their minds about actual facts. Feelings and opinions are a whole different ballgame.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Furthermore, "having fun" is a useless goal. It is like saying that a school can fall back on the "learn information" goal, or that an army can fall back on the "win battles" goal. Yes, it is desirable to have fun, to learn, and to win battles. But to make that your actual, stated goal, the plan of action? It is so uselessly unspecific as to actually hamper your ability to achieve the stated end.

This is why it's so infuriating to me how often people come into discussions like this with unhelpful "well fun should be the goal, not [whatever]" arguments. It's the antithesis of productive for both the conversation and for actual design or strategy.

Agreed. How we are having fun, learning information, and winning battles is the crux of the discussion, and those questions don't have answers that fit everyone.

 

[Clint_L]

Hmmm...I don't really think in the terms set forth by the OP. For me, the games are about having fun through creating a story together. Combat adds a tactical element to the game that can be fun in itself, in the way that problem solving in cooperative board games is fun, and also add to the story by raising the stakes - your character could die! Your group could fail! But I definitely don't see combat (or gold) as the point of the game, which is how I interpret the words "worthy end." The point of the game is to get together with friends and keep building those stories.

I'm on team milestone, but I also understand the appeal of advancing through some form of experience points. Using experience adds a kind of sub-game to character management and I well remember the delicious anticipation of knowing that you are so close to levelling up!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed. How we are having fun, learning information, and winning battles is the crux of the discussion, and those questions don't have answers that fit everyone.

Not just "how," either; what kind of fun, what sort of information, what form of battle, these things also matter a great deal. "What" and "why" are as essential as "how."

It's lovely to have an excellent ability to teach integral calculus, but such skills are useless in a Spanish classroom. It is great to have excellent ability to command submersible battalions and leverage secret attacks, but that's not really helpful when you need to capture enemy land infrastructure or produce symbolic victories to rally the people.

Likewise, it is great to be able to (say) craft an engaging and challenging combat...but useless if what your players would get fun from is a murder mystery. But it is equally a problem to bring excellent whodunnit-writing skills to the table if what the players would get fun from is a really kickass fight.

Hence why I say that the question bifurcates. It is important to consider what each specific group wants and needs, and adjust one's efforts to fit these things. But it is also important, I would even argue more important, to build an underlying system that supports a GM to achieve highest success when doing such adjustment. Part of declaring that your game has "pillars" is so you can tell the GM what things the game is meant to be good at doing, not merely "adequate and maybe better if you really work hard on it."

And, unfortunately, one of the necessary parts of making any designed thing is that you will need to decide that some classes of answer to "how" and "what" (and, occasionally, "why") are simply not well-supported. A perfectly comprehensive system cannot exist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not just "how," either; what kind of fun, what sort of information, what form of battle, these things also matter a great deal. "What" and "why" are as essential as "how."

It's lovely to have an excellent ability to teach integral calculus, but such skills are useless in a Spanish classroom. It is great to have excellent ability to command submersible battalions and leverage secret attacks, but that's not really helpful when you need to capture enemy land infrastructure or produce symbolic victories to rally the people.

Likewise, it is great to be able to (say) craft an engaging and challenging combat...but useless if what your players would get fun from is a murder mystery. But it is equally a problem to bring excellent whodunnit-writing skills to the table if what the players would get fun from is a really kickass fight.

Hence why I say that the question bifurcates. It is important to consider what each specific group wants and needs, and adjust one's efforts to fit these things. But it is also important, I would even argue more important, to build an underlying system that supports a GM to achieve highest success when doing such adjustment. Part of declaring that your game has "pillars" is so you can tell the GM what things the game is meant to be good at doing, not merely "adequate and maybe better if you really work hard on it."

And, unfortunately, one of the necessary parts of making any designed thing is that you will need to decide that some classes of answer to "how" and "what" (and, occasionally, "why") are simply not well-supported. A perfectly comprehensive system cannot exist.

A little honestly from the designers as to what is supported and to what degree would also be nice.