Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Combat as war, sport, or ??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8827548" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Excellent point, one I had not considered. "Combat as War," as traditionally presented, only considers the <em>players</em> as waging war, with the <em>monsters</em> doing barely more than basic self-preservation. When paired with my above criticism of "Combat as Sport," with how the "two equal-ish teams" analogy demonstrably breaks down in all but occasional instances, one has to wonder: what is this analysis achieving? Its alleged "war" prong holds no water because it is blatantly artificial, allowing only one side to behave as though the conflict is like actual warfare.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I don't really think people <em>actually</em> do "Combat as Sport" either--because "sport," as pointed out by [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER], implies teams of roughly equal capacity with the genuine expectation that the bout <em>could</em> go either way. Seeing a professional boxer trounce a teenager isn't sport; seeing a Minor League Baseball team go up against a Major League team would be dull. And yet the expectation in TTRPGs is not only that the players <em>will</em> go up against their opposition, but that they will succeed pretty handily almost all of the time. Abandoning one's goal completely is uncommon; losing party members is unusual; whole TPKs are somewhat rare. This simply doesn't reflect the described nature of "Combat as Sport"--it <em>isn't</em> two equal-ish teams going at it, that's not the kind of situation intended.</p><p></p><p>Instead, I think most people expect some amount of <em>each</em> of these: Spectacle, Puzzle, Performance, Worldbuilding.</p><p></p><p>Combat-as-Spectacle is, I hope, relatively obvious. There's a reason almost everyone (detractor and booster alike) refers to 4e as having "set-piece" combats. A Spectacle is something to be looked upon (very literally), something marveled at and enjoyed purely for that benefit. Spectacle design only cares about balance instrumentally, to provide a reasonable (within probabilistic limits) certainty that a particular sequence of events will play out (e.g., the boss will survive at least 3 rounds, and thus should be <em>almost certainly</em> able to pull off its flashy, impressive two-round combo action.)</p><p></p><p>Combat-as-Puzzle welcomes a specific kind of balance: consistency and predictability. A puzzle requires that there be <em>an answer</em>, as opposed to a <em>game</em> where there are many valid approaches to the win-state. And we all know that "puzzle monsters" have been around for ages--even back in the beginning. There are various ways to design a "puzzle," with each edition having its own ideas of how that should be done. Environmental effects, bringing the right damage types, talking to the right people first, doing one's own research, etc. etc.</p><p></p><p>Combat-as-Performance can be understood in two ways, either "performance" as a form of <em>roleplay</em> (e.g. "my Wizard is a cryomancer, all of his offensive spells do cold damage" or players who actually write up nasty comments for their Bard to use with <em>vicious mockery</em>), or "performance" as a <em>metric</em> of success (e.g. optimization, tournament modules, Tucker's Kobolds, etc.--the "can you step up to the plate and prove how badass you are?" perspective, performance <em>evaluation</em>.) Both are valid and, as before, found in essentially every edition of D&D, with different people having different perspectives. I've known old-school players who found anything more flowery than "I attack" to be the most tedious, idiotic faffery they've ever gritted their teeth to endure, and new-school players who couldn't care less about solving puzzles if the solution would require them to act OOC.</p><p></p><p>Combat-as-Worldbuilding is where the verisimilitudinists and storygamers hang out. Whether it be making a world that is self-consistent and which engages in environmental storytelling, or a world that communicates the intended theme and tone and supports the kinds of stories the players want to tell, you can absolutely do a TON of worldbuilding through <em>what</em> combats occur and <em>who</em> fights in them. Not much more to say than that--because, again, these things have been present from the beginning and have remained so, just to varying degrees and with subtle differences of emphasis.</p><p></p><p>But...in a very real sense, these things are just goals that <em>all</em> of D&D, combat and non-combat, supports and welcomes. Which makes the "Combat-as" part seem...pretty unnecessary. Just talk about how combat can support the interests of Spectacle or interesting Puzzles or enabling Performances or demonstrating/revealing Worldbuilding etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8827548, member: 6790260"] Excellent point, one I had not considered. "Combat as War," as traditionally presented, only considers the [I]players[/I] as waging war, with the [I]monsters[/I] doing barely more than basic self-preservation. When paired with my above criticism of "Combat as Sport," with how the "two equal-ish teams" analogy demonstrably breaks down in all but occasional instances, one has to wonder: what is this analysis achieving? Its alleged "war" prong holds no water because it is blatantly artificial, allowing only one side to behave as though the conflict is like actual warfare. Again, I don't really think people [I]actually[/I] do "Combat as Sport" either--because "sport," as pointed out by [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER], implies teams of roughly equal capacity with the genuine expectation that the bout [I]could[/I] go either way. Seeing a professional boxer trounce a teenager isn't sport; seeing a Minor League Baseball team go up against a Major League team would be dull. And yet the expectation in TTRPGs is not only that the players [I]will[/I] go up against their opposition, but that they will succeed pretty handily almost all of the time. Abandoning one's goal completely is uncommon; losing party members is unusual; whole TPKs are somewhat rare. This simply doesn't reflect the described nature of "Combat as Sport"--it [I]isn't[/I] two equal-ish teams going at it, that's not the kind of situation intended. Instead, I think most people expect some amount of [I]each[/I] of these: Spectacle, Puzzle, Performance, Worldbuilding. Combat-as-Spectacle is, I hope, relatively obvious. There's a reason almost everyone (detractor and booster alike) refers to 4e as having "set-piece" combats. A Spectacle is something to be looked upon (very literally), something marveled at and enjoyed purely for that benefit. Spectacle design only cares about balance instrumentally, to provide a reasonable (within probabilistic limits) certainty that a particular sequence of events will play out (e.g., the boss will survive at least 3 rounds, and thus should be [I]almost certainly[/I] able to pull off its flashy, impressive two-round combo action.) Combat-as-Puzzle welcomes a specific kind of balance: consistency and predictability. A puzzle requires that there be [I]an answer[/I], as opposed to a [I]game[/I] where there are many valid approaches to the win-state. And we all know that "puzzle monsters" have been around for ages--even back in the beginning. There are various ways to design a "puzzle," with each edition having its own ideas of how that should be done. Environmental effects, bringing the right damage types, talking to the right people first, doing one's own research, etc. etc. Combat-as-Performance can be understood in two ways, either "performance" as a form of [I]roleplay[/I] (e.g. "my Wizard is a cryomancer, all of his offensive spells do cold damage" or players who actually write up nasty comments for their Bard to use with [I]vicious mockery[/I]), or "performance" as a [I]metric[/I] of success (e.g. optimization, tournament modules, Tucker's Kobolds, etc.--the "can you step up to the plate and prove how badass you are?" perspective, performance [I]evaluation[/I].) Both are valid and, as before, found in essentially every edition of D&D, with different people having different perspectives. I've known old-school players who found anything more flowery than "I attack" to be the most tedious, idiotic faffery they've ever gritted their teeth to endure, and new-school players who couldn't care less about solving puzzles if the solution would require them to act OOC. Combat-as-Worldbuilding is where the verisimilitudinists and storygamers hang out. Whether it be making a world that is self-consistent and which engages in environmental storytelling, or a world that communicates the intended theme and tone and supports the kinds of stories the players want to tell, you can absolutely do a TON of worldbuilding through [I]what[/I] combats occur and [I]who[/I] fights in them. Not much more to say than that--because, again, these things have been present from the beginning and have remained so, just to varying degrees and with subtle differences of emphasis. But...in a very real sense, these things are just goals that [I]all[/I] of D&D, combat and non-combat, supports and welcomes. Which makes the "Combat-as" part seem...pretty unnecessary. Just talk about how combat can support the interests of Spectacle or interesting Puzzles or enabling Performances or demonstrating/revealing Worldbuilding etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Combat as war, sport, or ??
Top