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?

 

[Alzrius]

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.

That's not what it means. It means that the topic is important to them, and not one that they're simply willing to overlook. No need to pretend that it's necessarily negative.

 

[GMMichael]

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.

The character does the, for example, "treasure-grubbing," but the player decides to do it. So I hope you and I can agree that it's a "PC" question.

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.

Well I don't know about you, but I don't have a favorite thing that I like to do in-character. What my character pursues depends on what my character's goals are - his ends. Lewpuls gives us several examples of things that characters do, their "ends": kill everything and take the stuff, treasure-grubbing, fighting evil, having integrity. There's the outlier mention of XP-chasing, which is a player activity - XP don't exist in-game.

Whether or not it's worthy is even more character-dependent. As Umbran correctly points out: worthy is subjective. But who places the worth has an affect on the game:

Player places worth, character doesn't: this is no longer role-playing.
Character places worth, player doesn't: true role-playing at the risk of player apathy (see: not having fun).
Both player and character place worth: player's needs met, at the risk of diminishing role-playing (or the player's just playing himself).

So I'm sorry that you're so infuriated by the shift from player-ends to character-ends (which was the point behind my post/response), but delving into how players feel, and not characters, seems to miss the point of the original post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The character does the, for example, "treasure-grubbing," but the player decides to do it. So I hope you and I can agree that it's a "PC" question.

I don't see how. It is, as you say, the player deciding to do it. Characters cannot do things unless the player chooses to. That's one of the bedrock assumptions of TTRPG play, that unless the rules explicitly say otherwise, the player decides how their character behaves.

Well I don't know about you, but I don't have a favorite thing that I like to do in-character. What my character pursues depends on what my character's goals are - his ends. Lewpuls gives us several examples of things that characters do, their "ends": kill everything and take the stuff, treasure-grubbing, fighting evil, having integrity. There's the outlier mention of XP-chasing, which is a player activity - XP don't exist in-game.

All of these things are player activities. Some of them match up cleanly to character motivations. Others match up rather abstractly. "XP-chasing" may not literally exist, as in characters do not think of how much XP they will earn (other than in typically rather comedic universes), but the idea of facing tougher opponents in order to refine your skills is as old as being a mercenary (or bandit). "Kill everything and take the stuff" only to then sit on a pile of riches like a dragon, as many old-school murderhobos did, really doesn't match up very well to the kinds of things people do. Especially when it comes from a place of incredibly dangerous spelunking into murder-filled tombs and whatnot.

Further, you don't need to have a single favorite thing in order to have things you prefer to do or to avoid. You can have things you, as a player, wish to see occur in the game before you even have a character to play. E.g., I like to play dragonborn and either paladins or sorcerers. A character's ends could not possibly be involved in that preference, because those are preferences for deciding what character to play in the first place. Likewise, I prefer games that have a generally lighter, heroic tone: even if bad things happen to good people, and even if things sometimes go very wrong and maybe stay that way for a while, good people can, with hard work and cooperation, genuinely make things better and keep them that way for a decent while. As a tonal and cosmological preference, these again cannot even in principle be mapped to a character's preferences or ends, yet they are still extremely relevant to the question of "what is a worthy end?" in the context of TTRPGs. They define the parameters under which roleplay can subsequently play out.

Whether or not it's worthy is even more character-dependent. As Umbran correctly points out: worthy is subjective. But who places the worth has an affect on the game:

Only if you exclusively consider worthiness in an in-character way. There is also worthiness to you as a player. What do you as a player find worth doing? Just because you don't have a single favorite thing doesn't mean you don't have things you prefer to do or to avoid, whether or not any given character might think otherwise.

For example, you as a player might not want to play in a game where slavery takes a prominent role. Or you might specifically want to play a game where politics and economics are central. These things cannot be mapped to a character's preferences, not even in principle, and yet they are clearly part of what makes gameplay worthwhile--"worthy"--to the player. They are a player's concerns about what kind of roelplay they want to engage with. A character can no more choose whether their world's history features or doesn't feature slavery, or whether adventurous folks have a role to play in current political events, than you can choose that about your own world--but you as a player can make that choice about the worlds you choose to play characters in.

Player places worth, character doesn't: this is no longer role-playing.

Only under some definitions of "roleplaying," and only if we exclude things like the above "I want to play X"/"I don't want to play Y" considerations. Hence why Umbran referenced Session Zero and players articulating their gameplay/tone/story preferences.

Character places worth, player doesn't: true role-playing at the risk of player apathy (see: not having fun).

I genuinely do not believe it is possible for this to occur. If the player truly sees no value in it at all, they have no reason to do it. They may have an extrinsic value enforced on it, e.g. it's a requirement for them to continue participating in the stuff they do value. But if it truly has no value to them at all, then it's irrelevant what the character thinks. It won't be played.

Both player and character place worth: player's needs met, at the risk of diminishing role-playing (or the player's just playing himself).

I have no idea how this "diminishes roleplay," it sounds like exactly the sort of situation that we should encourage. If the player values the same sorts of things the character values, even if for different reasons, then the player will actively and enthusiastically seek out opportunities to express these behaviors. That sounds, to my ears, like the most desirable outcome.

So I'm sorry that you're so infuriated by the shift from player-ends to character-ends (which was the point behind my post/response), but delving into how players feel, and not characters, seems to miss the point of the original post.

I don't see how that is possible either, since the post repeatedly speaks of player interests, of systems creating incentives (which can only be understood by players, not by characters), of "murderhobos" (a concept describing an often-disliked pattern of player behavior, not character behavior), of "campaigns that want to explore more than just what’s gained at the point of a sword". Campaigns can't want anything--nor can characters want anything at the level of a "campaign." But players can--exactly the kind of Session Zero stuff

 

[Lanefan]

All of these things are player activities. Some of them match up cleanly to character motivations. Others match up rather abstractly. "XP-chasing" may not literally exist, as in characters do not think of how much XP they will earn (other than in typically rather comedic universes), but the idea of facing tougher opponents in order to refine your skills is as old as being a mercenary (or bandit). "Kill everything and take the stuff" only to then sit on a pile of riches like a dragon, as many old-school murderhobos did, really doesn't match up very well to the kinds of things people do.

Dunno 'bout that - the real world holds some pretty good examples of just this.

That said, TSR-era D&D gave far more ways of spending your loot than does 5e. Even the murder-est of hohoes wouldn't sit on a pile of wealth; instead that wealth would be turned into a castle or an inn or a life of sin and debauchery...or it would be stolen from them. Whatever.

Only if you exclusively consider worthiness in an in-character way. There is also worthiness to you as a player. What do you as a player find worth doing? Just because you don't have a single favorite thing doesn't mean you don't have things you prefer to do or to avoid, whether or not any given character might think otherwise.

For example, you as a player might not want to play in a game where slavery takes a prominent role. Or you might specifically want to play a game where politics and economics are central. These things cannot be mapped to a character's preferences, not even in principle, and yet they are clearly part of what makes gameplay worthwhile--"worthy"--to the player.

Sure they can. You play a character whose main motivation is to end slavery in the setting. You play a character whose motivations are mostly political. Etc.

They are a player's concerns about what kind of roelplay they want to engage with. A character can no more choose whether their world's history features or doesn't feature slavery, or whether adventurous folks have a role to play in current political events, than you can choose that about your own world--but you as a player can make that choice about the worlds you choose to play characters in.

True, and you can also choose to play characters who for whatever reason stand in opposition to those setting conceits.

In the game I play in, not all undead are evil. Does that stop me from playing a character to whom any and all undead need to be destroyed right now no matter what, because undead simply shouldn't exist? Hells no!

I genuinely do not believe it is possible for this to occur. If the player truly sees no value in it at all, they have no reason to do it. They may have an extrinsic value enforced on it, e.g. it's a requirement for them to continue participating in the stuff they do value. But if it truly has no value to them at all, then it's irrelevant what the character thinks. It won't be played.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that yes, it's very possible to end up with a character who is doing things you-as-player have no interest in and-or actively dislike as a player. It tends to happen by staying true to the character and then having one thing just lead to the next until you've followed the character into blah-land.

I'm by nature a chaotic player. My no. 1 character these days is a lawful neutral bureaucrat, and I'm constantly having to slap myself on the wrist when I think of something fun: "No, dum-dum, she wouldn't do that. Do the boring thing instead!". But she's also a hella fine mage and so I keep running her out.

 

[Minigiant]

There is a book that says there are 7 basic plots.

Well each has their own end goal

1. Overcoming The Monster: Monster Kills as XP Defeat the bad guy.
2. Voyage And Return: Distance as XP. Get to the area and return.
3. Rags To Riches: Gold as XP. Get rich.
4. The Quest. Quests as XP. Aid your side.
5. Comedy: Milestone as XP. Get to the end of the silliness.
6. Tragedy: Loss as XP. Cause yours or another's fall.
7. Rebirth: Change as XP Cause a change in yourself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dunno 'bout that - the real world holds some pretty good examples of just this.

That said, TSR-era D&D gave far more ways of spending your loot than does 5e. Even the murder-est of hohoes wouldn't sit on a pile of wealth; instead that wealth would be turned into a castle or an inn or a life of sin and debauchery...or it would be stolen from them. Whatever.

Sure they can. You play a character whose main motivation is to end slavery in the setting. You play a character whose motivations are mostly political. Etc.

No. You misunderstand. The former character can only exist in a setting where slavery is already practiced. What about a player who says, "I just...I find slavery really squicks me out, badly. I had some bad experiences as a child that contributed to that. Can we please play a game where there just isn't any slavery?" This preference cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto a character preference--because it is, at its root, about what kind of game one wants to play, not about how to play within a given game. Likewise, a player asking for the inclusion of political stuff at the outset is (implicitly) requesting that the GM avoid something like "this is a post-apocalyptic wasteland where settlements larger than 100 people essentially don't exist and nobody knows about much of anything more than 50 miles from where they currently live." That's a setting where political machinations are effectively impossible--so a player that wants a high-politics game is telling the GM not to do that. No character could possibly have that preference; only a player can.

True, and you can also choose to play characters who for whatever reason stand in opposition to those setting conceits.

But standing in opposition (or in preference!) to those setting conceits is fundamentally different from asking for those setting conceits to exist or not exist. That's my point here. There are game-preferences which cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto character preferences, yet they are still a critical part of playing a productive game.

In the game I play in, not all undead are evil. Does that stop me from playing a character to whom any and all undead need to be destroyed right now no matter what, because undead simply shouldn't exist? Hells no!

But it does stop someone from playing if they find undead extremely squicky and specifically do not wish to play in any game where undead are a meaningful part of the game. You are presuming that the game conceits all necessarily already exist, and the players then must orient themselves toward them. I am talking about player requests regarding what conceits do exist in the first place. These cannot be mapped to character preferences.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that yes, it's very possible to end up with a character who is doing things you-as-player have no interest in and-or actively dislike as a player. It tends to happen by staying true to the character and then having one thing just lead to the next until you've followed the character into blah-land.

I'm by nature a chaotic player. My no. 1 character these days is a lawful neutral bureaucrat, and I'm constantly having to slap myself on the wrist when I think of something fun: "No, dum-dum, she wouldn't do that. Do the boring thing instead!". But she's also a hella fine mage and so I keep running her out.

But you have, here, already revealed why you do it: because it is a prerequisite for you to get access to the thing you do value, the fact that she is "a hella fine mage." You tolerate the part that you, personally, feel nothing about or even actively dislike, because it is a prerequisite for getting access to the thing you enjoy quite a lot.

Remove that element. Imagine if she wasn't a hella fine mage. Imagine that she were, say, a very run-of-the-mill fighter and you didn't really get any particular enjoyment out of playing that. Would you still endure the aspects which run counter to your general roleplaying preferences?

People very rarely do things if they find no value whatsoever in them. Sometimes, people will do things that have zero (or even negative) intrinsic value, if an extrinsic value is attached to them, some kind of incentive or benefit outside the action itself. E.g., a child may find negative intrinsic value in "doing chores," because chores aren't fun and eat up time, but with sufficient positive extrinsic value like an allowance, they may do those chores and even be enthusiastic about doing so. Frequently, people will do things that have positive intrinsic value, even if it's associated with negative extrinsic value. Anyone who has a hobby or interest with a stigma attached to it (e.g. the way "computer nerds" are still characterized in fiction today) is doing exactly that, they enjoy the hobby in and of itself, despite the extrinsic social cost of it. But if the extrinsic and intrinsic value are both negative in the person's eyes...they almost surely will not do that thing.

 

[talien]

You play the domain game. That's my answer anyway.

I'm actually a fan of the domain game myself, but because I'm a forever DM I suspect it appeals to me in a way that it doesn't to many players.

 

[talien]

I think you start shopping at Crate and Barrel instead of Ikea. The game transitions into deciding what kind of dining set defines you as a character.


This should be a character-focused question, because the player can generally fall back on "having fun."
Q: Why is the character putting her neck in harm's way? Or for D&D: why is the character putting her neck in the way of hit point attrition? Is it something the character would consider worthy?

Here's one take from an eyeball-irritating vanilla Skyrim:

It's weird because mechanically things start to break down in terms of wealth. Unless you can buy mechanically-relevant magic items (3.5E did this, 5th not so much), you really can't buy much "regular stuff" and have it feel any different mechanically. Once you hit full plate and a greatsword and you've got a warhorse... you're probably set, cash wise, if the game is focused on combat.

If you can buy magic items that changes everything however.

 

[GMMichael]

Well each has their own end goal

1. Overcoming The Monster: Monster Kills as XP Defeat the bad guy.
2. Voyage And Return: Distance as XP. Get to the area and return.
3. Rags To Riches: Gold as XP. Get rich.
4. The Quest. Quests as XP. Aid your side.
5. Comedy: Milestone as XP. Get to the end of the silliness.
6. Tragedy: Loss as XP. Cause yours or another's fall.
7. Rebirth: Change as XP Cause a change in yourself.

But are they worthy?

It's weird because mechanically things start to break down in terms of wealth. Unless you can buy mechanically-relevant magic items (3.5E did this, 5th not so much), you really can't buy much "regular stuff" and have it feel any different mechanically. Once you hit full plate and a greatsword and you've got a warhorse... you're probably set, cash wise, if the game is focused on combat.

Two points here, then I must make coffee:
1) in D&D, you lose hit points and it doesn't "feel any different mechanically." I wonder if we can tie that to the gaining/spending wealth problem.
2) A character can have the end goal: become a Lannister, or the richest person around. In that case, finding more and more things to spend money on just defeats the ends. Get Rich was a common player goal (until debt became the new measure of...), so I have to wonder why that doesn't carry over to characters. If a PC's hoard rivals that of the crown, doesn't that buy the power to say, for example, "my party can't go to Reichtenstein because the king's army is in the way? Something about the war? Sigh. I'm going to pay off the knights and lords to move their stupid troops out of the way and stand down. At least long enough for us to travel through."

 

[Minigiant]

But are they worthy?

Sure. Can be.


Succeeding the Quest or Rebirth as a better person can be worthy.