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