New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2020

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I am, however, curious how you view strategy as a valid element in CaS. How can strategy not break the game under a CaS paradigm? (EDIT: *tactics* are available in both)
    Because it is front loaded into the PCs abilities. CaS doesn't lack a strategic element, it lacks the element of in play strategic decisions. Hence the reason I prefer CaW, it has the added bonus of multiple strategic layers that CaS lacks.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    CaS certainly requires the Goldilocks-approved "just right" difficulty. "Too hard" is certainly one implementation of CaW; however, what about "too easy" - where does that fit in?
    It's part of the CAW game process, but also a narrative element. Say in our hypothetical hive of giant bees our intrepid party are camped in a meadow with some nice flowers...

    In a less combat focused game, the bees are there for the flowers. It's an easy fight and the party knows bees visit flowery meadows. They may or may not do anything with this info and that's fine.
    In more CAW games it's the start of a scene which might have multiple encounters as the scout goes for help, or maybe it's just showing the party where bees feed so they can consider that in their plans
    In a CAS game there'll be enough bees to make it a good fight


    Also, as a community, maybe we need to work on accepting there's no wrong way to play except when someone is abusive of others at the table
    Having terms for this scale can then be a helpful tool for players and GMs to work together better to make a game fun for everyone
    Last edited by Duff; 2020-10-28 at 10:41 PM.
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  3. - Top - End - #33
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2019

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    CaS doesn't require "fair" fights. The main goal is interesting fights.

    With CaW you aim for boringly easy fights because you did something "strategic" that made them easy.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffWatson View Post
    I'm not a fan of the distinction, as it is usually used by CaW fans to insult CaS players. CaW is for smart, strategic play, while CaS is for dummies who charge at at every monster.
    This is more or less where I'm sitting. The distinction seems like it has little purpose but to foster division. I've yet to see it actually help with anything else. The terms are useless and trying to "refine" them is a waste of time.
    Last edited by Morty; 2020-10-29 at 04:39 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Part of the problem is I suspect pure Cas where the players have no ability to influence an encounter until initiative is rolled is pretty rare, I'm not certain I have every played with a system that considered it the default. Its more a though experiment than an actual campaign /system wide trait.

    Thus when one side of the equation is largely theoretical I agree with other voices saying the distinction is not useful and possibly a slight detriment as it implies a division far greater than actually exists.
    Last edited by awa; 2020-10-29 at 07:19 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    I would say:

    In both situations, the party is expected to prevail but might lose if things go pear shaped. If the party is dead or the challenge is unfair beyond the established and reasonable consequence of prior action, you don't have a game and might as well just have said rocks fall y'all die lets do something else. In both situations, the players should use tactics and strategy and their mastery of system mechanics to win. Whats different is the relationship between the player and the GM, and how it feels afterwords to the player.

    In combat as sport, the GM works with the players to create an fun and exciting challenge.

    In combat as war, the GM works against the players and vice versa to create an engaging and thoughtful challenge.

    In combat as sport, after the battle, the players should be on an adrenaline high and feel excited about the action that just happened.

    In combat as war, after the battle, the player should be self-satisfied and feel clever about the action that just happened.
    Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    This is more or less where I'm sitting. The distinction seems like it has little purpose but to foster division. I've yet to see it actually help with anything else. The terms are useless and trying to "refine" them is a waste of time.
    I disagree; I find the terms moderately useful, mostly in terms of setting expectations in a session 0. They don't explain everything instantly and completely, but they provide a good starting off point, and a useful shorthand, especially for PbP descriptions.
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    I think it's usually the same distinction as roleplaying and rollplaying, except that it does put the two things at an equal level and not judging one to be right and the other to be wrong.

    Combat as Sport acknowledges that it's different from Combat as War, but they are two equal options. The emphasis is put on the two being different approaches for what is expected out of combat encounters. And it suggests that people being unhappy with combat encounters can be a result of mismatching expectations between players, GMs, and game mechanics.
    The whole purpose of the terminology is to reduce conflict by showing the difference between square pegs and round holes. (And round pegs and square holes.)

    Of course, it doesn't change what anyone enjoys. It doesn't make conflicting expectations and wishes magically disappear. It only shows where the conflict comes from.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    I would say :

    CaS : The combat is supposed to be the fun and exciting thing. And the important thing. The in-game reasons why people fight are of little importance and further consequences of the fight don'T really matter either. It is all just a setup to have the fight and to bring an interesting bunch of combatants to the arena and have fun there.

    CaW : People have a reason to fight and the consequences of the fight are really important. How the fight actually happens does not matter much, only the outcome matters. If it is interesting and fun that is good. But if it is short and forseeable and the right side wins, that is even better. That does not mean that cheating or cheese is welcome, but stacking the deck in your favor and seeking unfair advantages through not broken rules is welcome.


    Usually CaW is also more immersive.
    I agree with the parts I bolded; I'm not so sure about the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    @Quertus:

    The number of tactical decisions in a game starts from zero and can go arbitrarily high.

    The number of strategic decisions in a game also starts from zero and can go arbitrarily high.

    In case of a typical game, neither number is zero. Games focused on tactics still involve some degree of strategy and vice verse. That's why trying to sort games into just two camps is ridiculous. You are outlining stereotypes, not doing useful analysis. The "baggage" you adore consists of conflating other issues with analyzing levels of tactics and strategy in a game - issues such as player preferences over game difficulty, player respect of game rules, player preferences for immersion and players' motives for playing. It's not clear at all that any of these correlate with preferences about tactics and strategy to the degree implied by your posts and many others.
    I think you are thoroughly confused about what I meant by "baggage".

    I agree that none of those have any bearing on CaW vs CaS. In fact, that was the entire point of my spoofą.

    No, the "baggage" that I am referring to is things like "CaS requires a sporting difficulty, whereas CaW accepts encounters of any difficulty (with a heavy skew towards 'too hard' when the party learns of it, and 'too easy' by the time that they resolve it)" or "under CaS, a TPK is the GM's fault; under CaW, it is the players' fault (which one could word positively as 'making sure that a fight is survivable is the responsibility of…’)" or "the ’fun part' of the game in CaS is the combat; in CaW, the combat *might* be fun, but the 'fun part' is the strategic layer" or "those who derive fun from Challenge will likely be more drawn to CaS / may feel like oldschool level of 'well-played' CaW is cheating / robbing them of their fun".

    Both games can have tactics. But using strategy to change the Challenge of the encounter is unsportsmanlike in CaS.

    ą well that, and the fact that the originator had failed to grasp this fact, and the fanboys had failed to grasp that they had failed to grasp this fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffWatson View Post
    CaS doesn't require "fair" fights. The main goal is interesting fights.

    With CaW you aim for boringly easy fights because you did something "strategic" that made them easy.
    Agree (mostly) with the second bit - that is certainly *one* implementation of CaW (and the original way to play RPGs).

    I'm not so sure about the first part: are you saying that a CaS GM could design a TPK or a tactical snoozer for a CaS group, and it would be fine so long as the encounter was interesting? Because that's… not really been my understanding of the PoV of the CaS camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    This is more or less where I'm sitting. The distinction seems like it has little purpose but to foster division. I've yet to see it actually help with anything else. The terms are useless and trying to "refine" them is a waste of time.
    No, the division *absolutely* existed long before I had ever heard the terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    It's part of the CAW game process, but also a narrative element. Say in our hypothetical hive of giant bees our intrepid party are camped in a meadow with some nice flowers...

    In a less combat focused game, the bees are there for the flowers. It's an easy fight and the party knows bees visit flowery meadows. They may or may not do anything with this info and that's fine.
    In more CAW games it's the start of a scene which might have multiple encounters as the scout goes for help, or maybe it's just showing the party where bees feed so they can consider that in their plans
    In a CAS game there'll be enough bees to make it a good fight


    Also, as a community, maybe we need to work on accepting there's no wrong way to play except when someone is abusive of others at the table
    Having terms for this scale can then be a helpful tool for players and GMs to work together better to make a game fun for everyone
    Strongly agree with the last paragraph (for a very loose definition of "abusive"). But you've lost me on almost all the rest.

    "In a less combat focused game…" … I would expect that "the bees are there for the flowers" would make this trivially a non-fight. Also, can CaS accept "an easy fight"? That sounds like a waste of valuable game time.

    Why is the scout going for help with an easy fight in the CaW game?

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    EDIT: so, you are clearly on the side of "skipping encounters entirely - including by choosing which encounters to engage (and which missions to take?) - is CaW territory"?
    I think it would be more accurate to state that in CaW there are no "encounters". "Skipping encounters" implies that there's an expectation of what encounters should be engaged in. That seems very CaS to me.

    In CaW, combat isn't the point. It's a means to an end, not the end itself. It's not "skipping" an encounter. It's not engaging in something that doesn't further your goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    CaS =/= railroad.
    Not inherently, but the level of balance that CaS calls for is a lot easier if you know what the players will be encountering, and so can spend more time on the combats.

    OTOH, I would argue that railroading just about requires CaS.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Strategy allows you to pick different fights (and under different conditions). It doesn't (in CaS) generally allow you to win those fights without fighting. Unless you talk your way out of them, of course.
    The problem is that if you are good enough at that strategic layer, you can trivialize fights, which defeats the purpose of CaS.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    [1] I hate these terms, because as used they're basically pejoratives. CaS == you guys don't want to think. CaW == we're so smart and "realistic". When in reality, the DM only doesn't win because he chooses not to. Neither is "fair" or "earned"--the DM is always building things that can be defeated. Because otherwise you get rolled at level 1 and TPKd, because the DM holds all the cards.
    You seem to be the one with a very pejorative view of "CaW". Now it might be that some people do use these terms, but it's not universal, and let's not hold the worst of people up as the default. It's not helpful.

    CaS relies on thinking. It's not unthinking "hit the attack button durrr". If done right, it requires lots and lots of thinking, as if you've got even resources, the only thing you can do to get a success is to outthink your opponents. You just think about different things than you do with CaW.

    Also I'd say in CaW, the GM shouldn't be "letting" anyone win or not. If we go super old school, "here's the megadungeon. There's stuff in it. Where you go and what you do is up to you." They can play it safe and likely make it back, or get riskier and push their luck. That's all up to the players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    I would say :

    CaS : The combat is supposed to be the fun and exciting thing. And the important thing. The in-game reasons why people fight are of little importance and further consequences of the fight don'T really matter either. It is all just a setup to have the fight and to bring an interesting bunch of combatants to the arena and have fun there.

    CaW : People have a reason to fight and the consequences of the fight are really important. How the fight actually happens does not matter much, only the outcome matters. If it is interesting and fun that is good. But if it is short and forseeable and the right side wins, that is even better. That does not mean that cheating or cheese is welcome, but stacking the deck in your favor and seeking unfair advantages through not broken rules is welcome.
    This is a pretty good and neutral description I think.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Dr88;FR;NL;EU;Earth;Sol
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Both games can have tactics. But using strategy to change the Challenge of the encounter is unsportsmanlike in CaS
    Unless that is the layer at which the Sport takes place, and as such these strats are accounted for (and indeed expected).

    Not that it's my business, but I can definitely see the possibility of a CaS-approach on pretty much any strategic level (as well as CaW without one, even a tactical).

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Not inherently, but the level of balance that CaS calls for is a lot easier if you know what the players will be encountering, and so can spend more time on the combats.

    OTOH, I would argue that railroading just about requires CaS.
    Again, there's a huge difference between "not 100% sandbox" and "railroad".


    The problem is that if you are good enough at that strategic layer, you can trivialize fights, which defeats the purpose of CaS.
    Only if what you're really good at is playing the DM and ignoring the idea that "abilities do what they say they do" and abusing the lossy nature of descriptions (ie assuming that there's no ventilation because none was mentioned). That's how I see all the CaW games I've ever heard described--abuse of system and logic as well as browbeating/manipulating the DM. Has nothing to do with actually playing the game, it's just social manipulation. You don't even have a game at that level beyond free-form.

    You seem to be the one with a very pejorative view of "CaW". Now it might be that some people do use these terms, but it's not universal, and let's not hold the worst of people up as the default. It's not helpful.

    CaS relies on thinking. It's not unthinking "hit the attack button durrr". If done right, it requires lots and lots of thinking, as if you've got even resources, the only thing you can do to get a success is to outthink your opponents. You just think about different things than you do with CaW.
    My only exposure to those terms is on this forum. Where CaS is used synonymously with being lazy and having your hand held, and CaW is the "one true way". Like how sandbox and railroad are treated as binaries, when it's a spectrum.

    Also I'd say in CaW, the GM shouldn't be "letting" anyone win or not. If we go super old school, "here's the megadungeon. There's stuff in it. Where you go and what you do is up to you." They can play it safe and likely make it back, or get riskier and push their luck. That's all up to the players.
    The DM is always letting people win in D&D at least. Because he has unlimited tools and the players have none that don't rely on him, so if he really wanted to win, he could. Trivially. There is no such thing as "fair" between an omnipotent (within the game) force and one that can only act by relying on the DM to play nice and limit himself. Remember, the rules aren't binding on the DM--he has full authority (and is in fact commanded) to alter them as he sees fit. A fully antagonistic game (where the DM actually wants to win) would look much more like the Tomb of Horrors, except worse.

    Not only that, but everything in the world exists because the DM put it there. That megadungeon? Made (or approved) by the DM. All those options that you take? Only exist if the DM says they do. The DM is the sole interface between the world and the players. To get around that, you'd have to have a third party just hand the DM a dungeon and have him run it blind. No prep, not reading ahead. Just running it entirely blind and entirely by-the-book except for roleplaying the creatures. Every possible interaction outside of that would have to be pre-scripted. Which sounds even more railroady than anything else I can think of. And horrible for everyone.

    So the idea that CaW is somehow less hand-holding than CaS is, to me, a mirage. In fact, since so much of CaW is extra-game (relying on convincing the DM that the plan will work without actually involving things like rules or mechanics, mostly by arguing that <real world idea, often badly understood and horribly flawed> will solve the problem for sure, no need to roll), the entirety of CaW is up to the DM being a pushover. Nothing about CaW tests the characters. Or even cares about who they are. It only tests how tricky the players can get. The characters are just chess pieces without meaningful identity.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I think it's usually the same distinction as roleplaying and rollplaying, except that it does put the two things at an equal level and not judging one to be right and the other to be wrong.

    Combat as Sport acknowledges that it's different from Combat as War, but they are two equal options. The emphasis is put on the two being different approaches for what is expected out of combat encounters. And it suggests that people being unhappy with combat encounters can be a result of mismatching expectations between players, GMs, and game mechanics.
    The whole purpose of the terminology is to reduce conflict by showing the difference between square pegs and round holes. (And round pegs and square holes.)

    Of course, it doesn't change what anyone enjoys. It doesn't make conflicting expectations and wishes magically disappear. It only shows where the conflict comes from.
    Terminology is only useful if it tells us anything. This CaW/CaS split doesn't. The distinction doesn't actually exist, as combat is just one part of role-playing (but let's be real, this is a very D&D-specific argument despite claims of system-agnosticism) and there are many different approaches to it, which differ considerably based on circumstances and the ruleset. Trying to draw a line in the sand and forcibly put games, groups and players on either side helps no one.
    Last edited by Morty; 2020-10-29 at 01:37 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Again, there's a huge difference between "not 100% sandbox" and "railroad".
    To the extent that there's a bunch of styles of play besides the two extremes, I agree, though I do think there's a fairly firm boundary for "linear play" (which I use rather than railroad) that can be fairly easily tested objectively.

    And linear play isn't bad either. It's just... a way to play. Like any other, it has advantages and disadvantages, and will suit some people and not others.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Only if what you're really good at is playing the DM and ignoring the idea that "abilities do what they say they do" and abusing the lossy nature of descriptions (ie assuming that there's no ventilation because none was mentioned). That's how I see all the CaW games I've ever heard described--abuse of system and logic as well as browbeating/manipulating the DM. Has nothing to do with actually playing the game, it's just social manipulation. You don't even have a game at that level beyond free-form.
    A) Any player that pulls the "you didn't describe it, it's not there" would get the boot.

    B) Some people prefer games where more of the adjudication is placed on the system. Some people prefer games where the GM has more of the adjudication ability. We can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both, acknowledge our preferences, and accept that other people have different preferences because they value different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    My only exposure to those terms is on this forum. Where CaS is used synonymously with being lazy and having your hand held, and CaW is the "one true way".
    You'll notice I haven't done that. You'll notice that "different play styles, with strengths and weaknesses, appealing to different people" is a recurrent theme.

    Also, you're nudging up against OneTrueWayism yourself here a bit. I can understand that as a reaction, but since I haven't done the thing you're reacting to, I'd appreciate a touch more of a discussion. We can agree that hte CaW people that are OneTrueWaying and asserting it's superior and that CaS people are dumb and weak and play an inferior game are Poopy Butt Heads. That doesn't mean that CaW is something only enjoyed by PBHs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    The DM is always letting people win in D&D at least. Because he has unlimited tools and the players have none that don't rely on him, so if he really wanted to win, he could. Trivially. There is no such thing as "fair" between an omnipotent (within the game) force and one that can only act by relying on the DM to play nice and limit himself. Remember, the rules aren't binding on the DM--he has full authority (and is in fact commanded) to alter them as he sees fit. A fully antagonistic game (where the DM actually wants to win) would look much more like the Tomb of Horrors, except worse.
    Meh, ToH is just built on a different set of assumptions than most people are used to. At Gary's table people routinely busted through it with no issue, and he wrote it because people playing his game complained that it was too easy.

    Now, dropping ToH on a table not used to (or worse yet - expecting) that style of gaming is a jerk move and any GM doing that should lose his entire table immediately.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Not only that, but everything in the world exists because the DM put it there. That megadungeon? Made (or approved) by the DM. All those options that you take? Only exist if the DM says they do. The DM is the sole interface between the world and the players. To get around that, you'd have to have a third party just hand the DM a dungeon and have him run it blind. No prep, not reading ahead. Just running it entirely blind and entirely by-the-book except for roleplaying the creatures. Every possible interaction outside of that would have to be pre-scripted. Which sounds even more railroady than anything else I can think of. And horrible for everyone.
    I mean, yeah, there's jerk GMs? If you set up a dungeon, and do it in a fairly consistent way, it becomes objective. If the GM decides "I'm gonna screw with the players" then they're a bad GM and, again, should lose their table.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    So the idea that CaW is somehow less hand-holding than CaS is, to me, a mirage.
    Good thing I've never made that claim, because I don't believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    In fact, since so much of CaW is extra-game (relying on convincing the DM that the plan will work without actually involving things like rules or mechanics, mostly by arguing that <real world idea, often badly understood and horribly flawed> will solve the problem for sure, no need to roll), the entirety of CaW is up to the DM being a pushover.
    .... and now you're making BadWrongFun arguments. People do like games with more GM adjudication rather than everything being prescribed. You may not, for whatever reason. That's not a moral failing nor triumph on your part any more than it is a moral failing or triumph for people that don't like that.

    Clearly, CaW isn't for you. That's cool. It does work for other people. Also cool. It doesn't make anybody better than anybody else.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Nothing about CaW tests the characters. Or even cares about who they are. It only tests how tricky the players can get. The characters are just chess pieces without meaningful identity.
    I mean, that depends on how you define the characters? Is it their personality or their abilities? And a good GM should be leaning on the mechanical abilities to the extent that they're defined anyway.

    But, again, you just prefer gaming styles where the rules are more objective and the GM has a more limited input. Cool. But that doesn't mean that people who don't like that aren't roleplaying.

    I mean, seriously. I've made none of these accusations. Why are you making them at me? I'm trying to approach you with good faith here. Let's have that discussion, and leave the PBHs out of it.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Kyoryu: I'm reacting less to you than to the general topic here. While you've been reasonable, the vast majority of uses of the term have been much less so. Including the OP. And I'm working from a long history of getting irritated by this topic every time it comes up, with the same patterns repeating themselves over and over again. So if it seems like I'm accusing you, I'm not. At least not intentionally. More just venting.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    A) Any player that pulls the "you didn't describe it, it's not there" would get the boot.

    B) Some people prefer games where more of the adjudication is placed on the system. Some people prefer games where the GM has more of the adjudication ability. We can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both, acknowledge our preferences, and accept that other people have different preferences because they value different things.
    But separating those as "CaW" vs "CaS" isn't meaningful at all. Because the boundaries here are completely different and unrelated. I don't particularly have a problem with either playstyle...as long as it's a real thing, not the strawmen and exaggerations they're normally presented as.

    I find the distinction between CaW and CaS illusionary and most commonly made pejoratively. And I'm not the only one who feels that way (as evidenced in this thread).

    You'll notice I haven't done that. You'll notice that "different play styles, with strengths and weaknesses, appealing to different people" is a recurrent theme.

    Also, you're nudging up against OneTrueWayism yourself here a bit. I can understand that as a reaction, but since I haven't done the thing you're reacting to, I'd appreciate a touch more of a discussion. We can agree that hte CaW people that are OneTrueWaying and asserting it's superior and that CaS people are dumb and weak and play an inferior game are Poopy Butt Heads. That doesn't mean that CaW is something only enjoyed by PBHs.
    I disagree that there is anything meaningful about the terms CaW and CaS as defined on these forums except pejoratives. They're basically "things I like" and "things I dislike" (which one is which depends on the speaker). Although you don't hear people who fit the stereotype of CaS proclaiming their allegiance to that--the use of the term dominantly comes from self-proclaimed CaW people, and them claiming superiority (or the inferiority of the other side). I claim that the terms themselves are vacuous.

    Meh, ToH is just built on a different set of assumptions than most people are used to. At Gary's table people routinely busted through it with no issue, and he wrote it because people playing his game complained that it was too easy.

    Now, dropping ToH on a table not used to (or worse yet - expecting) that style of gaming is a jerk move and any GM doing that should lose his entire table immediately.
    But ToH isn't even a DM trying seriously to win. Because there's no way for the DM not to win if he does so without artificially tying his own hands. And that's something ignored by the side pushing this distinction.

    I mean, yeah, there's jerk GMs? If you set up a dungeon, and do it in a fairly consistent way, it becomes objective. If the GM decides "I'm gonna screw with the players" then they're a bad GM and, again, should lose their table.
    Agreed on the second, but I disagree that there can ever be an "objective" dungeon. Because people are doing it, and people are subjective creatures.

    Good thing I've never made that claim, because I don't believe it.
    You're not the only one in the conversation. And I've heard it directly, in sneering tones multiple times.

    .... and now you're making BadWrongFun arguments. People do like games with more GM adjudication rather than everything being prescribed. You may not, for whatever reason. That's not a moral failing nor triumph on your part any more than it is a moral failing or triumph for people that don't like that.

    Clearly, CaW isn't for you. That's cool. It does work for other people. Also cool. It doesn't make anybody better than anybody else.
    ...
    But, again, you just prefer gaming styles where the rules are more objective and the GM has a more limited input. Cool. But that doesn't mean that people who don't like that aren't roleplaying.
    Funny thing--I don't like (and don't run) fully prescribed games. There's heavy DM adjudication at my tables. But I also don't let players talk their way out of everything or use real-life arguments. And I generally run balanced encounters, but tactical triumphs aren't a focus of my games. Basically, neither CaS (as defined here) or CaW fit. And it's not even a spectrum--the terms themselves are just inapposite. And that's what I'm complaining about. The terms, as defined, are meaningless and unhelpful except to attempt to say that one is better or more realistic than the other.

    If you want to talk about having multiple paths to complete an objective, say that. If you want to talk about levels of GM adjudication, say that. If you want to distinguish strategy from tactics, do that. Don't muddle them into highly partisan terms that obfuscate, not clarify.

    I mean, that depends on how you define the characters? Is it their personality or their abilities? And a good GM should be leaning on the mechanical abilities to the extent that they're defined anyway.
    All I know is that every self-proclaimed "success" of CaW that I've heard has relied on the players bypassing anything about their characters (including personality, except to always make paranoid super-thinkers, because that's what real war is all about) and engaging in mind/word-games with the DM. Their abilities, their personalities, the entire game layer has always been discarded in favor of arguments from real textbooks, use of knowledge that the characters can't have (or that is flat out invalid in the fictional world--cf any use of modern physics or chemistry in D&D) and/or relies on weasel-wording of abilities to bypass all the limits written into them and inflate their abilities beyond measure.

    And a common thread between those who proclaim their allegiance to CaW has seemed to be a strong distrust of DMs and an antagonistic relationship towards them. And that's something I find disgusting. The most common thing is for people to be gloating about how they "broke the DM" (or his plans), in terms that made it clear that the DM wasn't having fun. And that their fun came from the DM not having fun/not getting to actually use anything he'd built. And that attitude, taking pleasure in someone else's displeasure is, to me, highly unpleasant. And the correlation between people talking up "CaW" and that attitude has been so high as to be hard to ignore.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    I've always had trouble understanding the meaning of this. If i choose not to design balanced encounters, I'm instead choosing a different difficulty (easy, hard, impossible, etc) even if i pretend that's not the case. If i want to "win at DND" as the DM, there's no way i can lose.

    This fundamental generally colors how i view encounter design, and generally leads to me preferring "balanced" encounters.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    I'll note my own style:

    I plan combats with reference to the party's capabilities. If the established in-universe facts suggest that there should be something trivial or something undefeatable, I don't plan it as a combat encounter[1].

    I do plan combats and expect there to be combat, because my players enjoy combat. They don't enjoy pushovers or running from unwinnable fights. And they don't enjoy spending 99% of the time planning so that the implementation can be just a "ok, your plan works perfectly, you win". They enjoy reacting to curveballs, charging in blindly and figuring things out on the fly, etc.

    On the other hand, I don't force encounters and the party has significant freedom at the strategic level, even if it invalidates my planning. And tactically-challenging combat isn't my gig--I'm more of the cinematic style. Narrative and exploration are my big things. Seeing what they do to the world and how.

    I assume the players will win and succeed--the interesting questions are how do they win and with what side-effects and what will they succeed at.

    I'm not CaW or CaS--neither term fits, and I'm not on a line between the two. Because the terms themselves don't describe real things or real games very well at all. They bundle together disparate elements that don't always (or usually) play nice together. It's like saying that either you like (vanilla ice cream and cherry pie) or you like (chocolate ice cream and apple pie). The idea that you may like all of them, none of them, some other mixture, or something else entirely is completely excluded from consideration.

    [1] but instead something else, like a social encounter or a setpiece with the unbeatable thing serving as the background. But if they really want to fight, they can.
    Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2020-10-29 at 02:38 PM.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I think you are thoroughly confused about what I meant by "baggage".

    I agree that none of those have any bearing on CaW vs CaS. In fact, that was the entire point of my spoofą.
    No. What you continue to describe as the baggage you want continues to be the conflatory mess I said it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    "CaS requires a sporting difficulty, whereas CaW accepts encounters of any difficulty (with a heavy skew towards 'too hard' when the party learns of it, and 'too easy' by the time that they resolve it)"
    What is or isn't "sporting" difficulty is largely a subjective player assesment and dependent on player skill. It has nothing to do with presence or absence of a strategic layer: you can have two players play through the exact same purely tactical scenario, and have one of them thing it's fair and the other curse the scenario designer for their unfairness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    "under CaS, a TPK is the GM's fault; under CaW, it is the players' fault (which one could word positively as 'making sure that a fight is survivable is the responsibility of…’)"
    This is stereotypical nonsense; in most tactical games, players are happy to accept that their loss is their own fault if it can be demonstrated to stem from their own tactical error. And most players of strategic games are happy to blame the GM if they have a reason to suspect the GM is feeding them deliberately unwinnable scenarios. TPKs have nothing to do with it; preference for or against TPKs is mostly about preference for character permanence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    or "the ’fun part' of the game in CaS is the combat; in CaW, the combat *might* be fun, but the 'fun part' is the strategic layer"
    I'm gonna claim that most players of strategic games would like for the tactical part to be interesting... sorry, "fun" as well. And most players of tactical games find some strategic choices to be fun as well. As I explained, it's not a binary choice where you can only choose one, it's entirely possible to pick both to varying degrees, so sorting playstyles to just two camps is building up stereotypes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    "those who derive fun from Challenge will likely be more drawn to CaS / may feel like oldschool level of 'well-played' CaW is cheating / robbing them of their fun".
    As someone who primarily runs OSR games, I'll note that a lot of "old school" tips and tricks for "cheating" encounters are tactical, not strategic, and preference for "old school" gaming is about being able to pitch those tactics directly to a GM without having to hunt through rulebooks for feats, spells or skills. On the flipside, a lot of people who feel "cheated" or "robbed" by such pitches, feel so because to them it looks like you're bypassing normal rules of the game by fast-talking a GM (PhoenixPhyre, above, is a case in point).

    This has nothing to do with "challenge" - that's, once again, about player preferences for difficulty.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2020-10-29 at 03:18 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    If you want to talk about having multiple paths to complete an objective, say that. If you want to talk about levels of GM adjudication, say that. If you want to distinguish strategy from tactics, do that. Don't muddle them into highly partisan terms that obfuscate, not clarify.
    I think that's the crux of my objection as well. The attempted CaW/CaS categorization takes several considerations and preferences for games and lumps them all together under two arbitrary and artificially opposed labels.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by awa View Post
    Part of the problem is I suspect pure Cas where the players have no ability to influence an encounter until initiative is rolled is pretty rare, I'm not certain I have every played with a system that considered it the default. Its more a though experiment than an actual campaign /system wide trait.

    Thus when one side of the equation is largely theoretical I agree with other voices saying the distinction is not useful and possibly a slight detriment as it implies a division far greater than actually exists.
    Just look at modules which change the number of opponents based on the number of PCs, or which have things like, "doesn't matter what the PCs abilities are, they cannot X" for *published* examples of how rare it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    In combat as sport, the GM works with the players to create an fun and exciting challenge.

    In combat as war, the GM works against the players and vice versa to create an engaging and thoughtful challenge.
    Mostly disagree on this one.

    I think that the GM should be a *fan* of the PCs in either case. I think that the GM should roleplay the adversaries against the players in either case.

    The difference is, in CaS, the GM has to metagame just as much as the players to not wreck the carefully-calibrated Challenge of the encounters.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    In combat as sport, after the battle, the players should be on an adrenaline high and feel excited about the action that just happened.

    In combat as war, after the battle, the player should be self-satisfied and feel clever about the action that just happened.
    Maybe? I mean, I feel awfully clever about my tactical choices in war games & CaS games - I don't think that that sentiment is exclusive to CaW / the strategic layer.

    Quote Originally Posted by zlefin View Post
    I disagree; I find the terms moderately useful, mostly in terms of setting expectations in a session 0. They don't explain everything instantly and completely, but they provide a good starting off point, and a useful shorthand, especially for PbP descriptions.
    Agreed. Glad to hear some support for terms people have been using and advocating for years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I think it's usually the same distinction as roleplaying and rollplaying, except that it does put the two things at an equal level and not judging one to be right and the other to be wrong.

    Combat as Sport acknowledges that it's different from Combat as War, but they are two equal options. The emphasis is put on the two being different approaches for what is expected out of combat encounters. And it suggests that people being unhappy with combat encounters can be a result of mismatching expectations between players, GMs, and game mechanics.
    The whole purpose of the terminology is to reduce conflict by showing the difference between square pegs and round holes. (And round pegs and square holes.)

    Of course, it doesn't change what anyone enjoys. It doesn't make conflicting expectations and wishes magically disappear. It only shows where the conflict comes from.
    Well, it's certainly intended… well, no. The originator clearly favored CaS. I think that it certainly *should* be intended to put them on equal footing.

    I'm not so sure that it corresponds to "roleplaying and rollplaying" beyond the metagaming (and occasional idiot ball holding / bad role-playing) required to not break the sporting nature of CaS.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Only if what you're really good at is playing the DM and ignoring the idea that "abilities do what they say they do" and abusing the lossy nature of descriptions (ie assuming that there's no ventilation because none was mentioned). That's how I see all the CaW games I've ever heard described--abuse of system and logic as well as browbeating/manipulating the DM. Has nothing to do with actually playing the game, it's just social manipulation. You don't even have a game at that level beyond free-form.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    All I know is that every self-proclaimed "success" of CaW that I've heard has relied on the players bypassing anything about their characters (including personality, except to always make paranoid super-thinkers, because that's what real war is all about) and engaging in mind/word-games with the DM.
    C'mon, even my *spoof* was better than that!

    The characters used their statistics to animate the dead, and their improved carrying capacity (from created undead, and from updating their character sheet with ursine lycanthropy) allowed them to "win extra", carrying out more honey than the GM expected.

    So, you're demonstrably wrong just from the example of CaW in my spoof.

    Assuming you, you know, actually read the spoof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Terminology is only useful if it tells us anything. This CaW/CaS split doesn't. The distinction doesn't actually exist, as combat is just one part of role-playing (but let's be real, this is a very D&D-specific argument despite claims of system-agnosticism) and there are many different approaches to it, which differ considerably based on circumstances and the ruleset. Trying to draw a line in the sand and forcibly put games, groups and players on either side helps no one.
    Helps no one? No, that's demonstrably wrong, per the various posters (including myself) who have used the terms to facilitate communication about gaming style.

    If I break the entire world down into "male" and "female", that doesn't tell us very much about what job the individuals involved hold. That doesn't mean that it isn't a useful distinction to make.

    The CaW / CaS distinction has purpose. Granted, the originator's purpose appears to have been to denigrate styles other than their own, but I have found - and hope to continue to find - the terms useful for *initiating* discussions about gaming styles.

    If someone says, "I prefer a CaS game that is heavy on sensory pleasure and Abnegation", I'll know it's probably not worth asking more questions to see if they're a good fit or not.

    And, having used the terms successfully to describe systems that aren't D&D, I am left quite confused as to why you believe that the terms are only applicable to D&D. Given my contradictory experiences, care to explain your reasoning?

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I've always had trouble understanding the meaning of this. If i choose not to design balanced encounters, I'm instead choosing a different difficulty (easy, hard, impossible, etc) even if i pretend that's not the case. If i want to "win at DND" as the DM, there's no way i can lose.

    This fundamental generally colors how i view encounter design, and generally leads to me preferring "balanced" encounters.
    Imagine a sandbox. I've placed an ancient Dragon there. You're in a level 1 party. Fighting that Dragon is *not* a balanced, sporting challenge. You are, of course, free to do so - and free to attempt to gain sufficient advantage that it is actually a winnable fight.

    Make more sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I think that's the crux of my objection as well. The attempted CaW/CaS categorization takes several considerations and preferences for games and lumps them all together under two arbitrary and artificially opposed labels.
    Where were you when I was first trying to make this point about the originator, before I wrote my spoof?

    OTOH, if *I* have made an error in the definition, it is the *exact opposite* - I am attempting to define the distinction *solely* on the ability of the strategic layer to affect the Challenge of the encounter.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-10-29 at 10:47 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    "Just look at modules which change the number of opponents based on the number of PCs, or which have things like, "doesn't matter what the PCs abilities are, they cannot X" for *published* examples of how rare it isn't."

    Yeah that's not an example of pure Cas, at best that is an example of an encounter that is pure Cas but even that is really stretching it. Now find me a module that says every encounter cannot be influenced outside of combat and you would be proving somewhere; but modifying number of foes based on number of pcs? Come on if were calling that Pure Cas then the term is so broad as to have no meaning.

    Running the same game for 2 players as you would for 6 without any adjustments just shows your not a very good dm.

    Besides I said campaign or system, a module is neither of those being much smaller in scope so even if you did find one that was a single continuous rail road that allowed not a single deviation from script it would not refute my point.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    To my mind, if this is a distinction worth making at all it's pretty much purely a matter of the attitude with which the group approaches combat.

    A combat as sport group sees the combat as, well, a sport; as in they expect it to be sporting. That doesn't necessarily mean they expect the PCs to -win- every encounter but they do expect that a TPK is a thing to be avoided to the point of it being nigh-guaranteed that they will or even for the GM to cancel out what would otherwise be a TPK by imposing some lesser, if still severe penalty for losing the combat.


    A combat as war group sees the combat as both sides of any given combat as doing their level best to annihilate the other. The only thing standing between the PCs and a TPK is their ability to avoid it. The GM may or may not deliberately leave the PCs any outs in a particular encounter but he won't go out of his way to point them out and will kill them all anyway if they don't opt to try for it, either because they missed it or misjudged needing it. If a TPK does happen, everyone just shrugs and rolls up new characters without much fuss.


    Beyond this difference in attitude, I don't know that there is a meaningful distinction to be made here.


    With that in mind, I doubt seriously that many groups are purely one or the other. I know my group certainly isn't.

    In combat as sport territory, we -should- have TPKed session before last. I made a few bad judgement calls after the Bard went down and things quickly spiraled. When the combat was ended, the bard was down but stable, the druid was stumbling around in the dark, blind as a bat and unable to meaningfully defend himself or target his spells and me and the wizard were dead. There's absolutely -no- reason beyond GM mercy that the bard and druid survived. They were stripped of their belongings and sent on their way.

    In combat as war territory, only one member of our group would've actually been particularly upset if the TPK had stood. We "kicked in the door" of a not-so-abandoned fortress full of orcs. We -should- have retreated sooner than we attempted to do so. I fully accept that I got my martial adept killed. Wizard does too with how his character died. The druid wasn't exactly pleased with how it went down, since it was a combination of both his -and- our decisions rather than just his own that left him in the lurch, but would've rolled with it anyway. The GM's mercy was predicated on two things: he didn't want to have to reintroduce one of the plot-hooks he layed down and the bard, his wife, would've whined to no end about how her death, fairly wrought, was unfair and he was pickin' on her again. I assure you, he feels -no- guilt for wiping us out.

    Personally, I kinda wish he had just rolled with the TPK. Getting us back on the plot-hook wouldn't have been as difficult as he thought.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Banned
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2020

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Well, lots to unpack here.

    An RPG is way to complex for just two descriptions like sport or war, but they are useful only in the most vague way to give you a vague sense of the game play.

    Combat as Sport is by default more casual. Some friends getting together eating snacks, having fun and rolling dice. And you get:

    1.The Genteelness Agreement. In any form.

    2.Characters as Stars of their own stories. This goes beyond the rules and the agreement to where the PCs are special main characters of the story.

    3.The Rules. Much like in a sport, the rules are the rules and are final. Everyone must follow the rules, and everyone is ready to call out if they see someone bend or ignore or break a rule.

    Combat as War by default is deadly serious. Some friends getting together to play out a very complex simulated reality.

    1.Anything goes. There is no agreement of any sorts.

    2.The PCs are not special stars at all.

    3.The Rules. Some rules are final, but for the most part: anything goes.

    But the above really only gets you a vague sense of the game. What you really need to do is go point by point, on a ten scale(0: Cartoon, 1-5:Combat is Sport 6-10:Combat is War)

    Seriousness
    Consequences
    Awareness
    Assumptions
    Protections
    Resource Management
    Loss
    Lasting Effects
    Surprises

    And so on.

    An Archer is a great example here. At zero it's a pure cartoon, an archer can shoot 100 arrows and they zip around like bees; the archer can shoot any time, anywhere with no ill effects. At about three you get the idea that the archer has as many mundane arrows as they wish "if reasonable"; they can shoot mundane arrows in every encounter and are assumed to make/find/buy/or something arrows as the game day rolls on. By five the archer has slightly less then infinite arrows and must take at least a vague action, and a roll, to say they are crafting or looking for arrows. Getting to six is where the archer has a very specific and set number of arrows: period. And they have set rules about how to make or find arrows. Going past seven is thing like the archer must keep the bow dry, make checks often to see if it gets broken when dropped or hit, gets into dozens of different bow and arrow types, plus all types of at will maneuvers that are not in the rulebooks.

    You can easily see examples:

    Sport: Almost no foe ever targets the archers bow or arrows. The archer can fall off a cliff into a raging river, tumble in to a pool of lava or be zapped into another dimension and they will never loose their bow an arrows. The archer is just assumed to take care of the bow and arrows ''off game" and the archer just buys and makes arrows all the time, again "off game"

    War: The archers bow and arrows are big huge target: any foe with an intelligence of three or more understands the power, range and danger of a bow and will target it if needed or possible. The archer is always in a big danger of loosing their bow and arrows. To say fall in a river from a higher is just about sure to loose the bow and many arrows, and the character will have to take actions to get them back...if possible. A pit of lava will destroy the mundane bows and arrows quickly. The archer must take game time and actions to care for the bow. The archer must carefully count each arrow, and they can and will run out...and then not be much of an archer.

    But none of the above are exclusive to one type. Two games might both be Resource Management eight, so each archer in each game has to count their arrows carefully. But game A might have Loss 2, so the PCs just about never accidentally loose anything and game B might have Loss 9, where the Pcs stuff might be lost on a whim at any time.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by zlefin View Post
    I disagree; I find the terms moderately useful, mostly in terms of setting expectations in a session 0. They don't explain everything instantly and completely, but they provide a good starting off point, and a useful shorthand, especially for PbP descriptions.
    As a concept, this conversation may help make me a better player. I like to do CAW, but if the game is being run more CAS, I should consider that might be because the gm or other players prefer that.
    So, it shouldn't have to be a destructive conversation.

    In an Australian discussion group I'm in we say "There's no such thing as badwrongfun". That doesn't mean we can't learn from each other, just that different doesn't mean wrong
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Actually, I disagree about CaS/CaW being more/less serious. I think it's more about what types of decisions people want to make.

    And while CaS/CaW bundle up a number of variables, I still think it's useful, because at some point those variables combine to create a fundamentally different style of gaming. And understanding that these styles of gaming exist, and are different is useful.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Actually, I disagree about CaS/CaW being more/less serious. I think it's more about what types of decisions people want to make.

    And while CaS/CaW bundle up a number of variables, I still think it's useful, because at some point those variables combine to create a fundamentally different style of gaming. And understanding that these styles of gaming exist, and are different is useful.
    More or less serious? Did I miss that, or is that people's takeaway from my "beer and pretzels" comment? If the latter, I clearly need to amend my comment slightly.

    For the "bundling a number of variables"... I mean, I think "male vs female" (biologically) is defined by a single variable involving chromosomes, but results in numerous measurable variables between the two (for any given species). I *think* CaW/CaS is similarly a single variable "under the hood" ("can we change the difficulty of the encounter through the strategic layer / before the encounter starts"), with numerous observable differences in the types of games that result from that decision. Does your stance fundamentally differ from mine in any appreciable way; if so, would you care to explain those perceived differences?

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    More or less serious? Did I miss that, or is that people's takeaway from my "beer and pretzels" comment? If the latter, I clearly need to amend my comment slightly.

    For the "bundling a number of variables"... I mean, I think "male vs female" (biologically) is defined by a single variable involving chromosomes, but results in numerous measurable variables between the two (for any given species). I *think* CaW/CaS is similarly a single variable "under the hood" ("can we change the difficulty of the encounter through the strategic layer / before the encounter starts"), with numerous observable differences in the types of games that result from that decision. Does your stance fundamentally differ from mine in any appreciable way; if so, would you care to explain those perceived differences?
    As I've said before, i think it's more than that. It's about the role of "encounters" within the game, the expected activities of the game, etc.

    And you didn't say that about "more/less serious". Spiderswims did.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    More or less serious? Did I miss that, or is that people's takeaway from my "beer and pretzels" comment? If the latter, I clearly need to amend my comment slightly.

    For the "bundling a number of variables"... I mean, I think "male vs female" (biologically) is defined by a single variable involving chromosomes, but results in numerous measurable variables between the two (for any given species). I *think* CaW/CaS is similarly a single variable "under the hood" ("can we change the difficulty of the encounter through the strategic layer / before the encounter starts"), with numerous observable differences in the types of games that result from that decision. Does your stance fundamentally differ from mine in any appreciable way; if so, would you care to explain those perceived differences?
    There's some implied differences that go with the split to a variable degree:
    CAW works better than CAS with sandbox games.
    1st level party decide to take on the great old dragon? CAW says "Sure, you'll need a brilliant plan or you're toast"
    CAS struggles with that so; either the sensible players understand that the deep end of the sandbox isn't for them yet, the GM puts 10 levels worth of encounters between them and the dragon so it's a sporting fight when they get there, the dragon has moved out when they get there etc. It can be done, but it doesn't suit the game style as well. CAS is easier when the party is following the plot from one level appropriate adventure to the next.

    On a related note, CAW requires more of the world to be generated. The party can't use other resources to beat a fight if they can't find out what resources are there. Some games will have players ask for/tell the GM what's around, others will rely on the GM to tell the players about the world

    CAS works better at a faster pace. The level appropriate party probably makes a few stealth rolls and maybe a tracking roll to get them to the dragon's lair. Fight ensues and maybe another couple of encounters before home time.
    CAW works better at a slower pace. A session spent plotting the dragon's downfall is a session well spent, plan to be enacted next session...

    CAW often needs to give the characters more down time to gather info and resources. Hire scouts and a week later you get their reports. Travel around the kingdom recruiting another party to hit the front door while you go in the back
    Again, CAS is faster, rest, heal, repeat with just the odd trip into town to sell loot and buy supplies. They can often use the down time for crafting etc, but it's not essential that they have it regularly

    The GM and players in CAS should have a reasonable idea of how hard a fight or an adventure will be so the risk of accidental TPK is less. Though the GM may make a genuine 50/50 fight, that's not an accident if it goes south
    Because the GM is creating situations without knowing how much the players will manage to change it, there's a higher risk of accidental TPK. So the party need to be OK with that

    The strategic mindset of CAW works better with players who think and talk about the game between sessions.
    CAS rewards that sort of thing less. It's still good to talk about your build plans and rule interpretations out of game time, but there's simply less planning that needs doing.
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    Has the DM done statistics to figure out how many people of what power levels are left after you nuked their city from orbit, to determine how many people are going to be trying to scry&teleport-kill you? Was it more than 30 people? Combat as war.

    When the party sneaks into the villian's hideout at night are all the henchmen at their posts in full arms & armor despite having been our raiding that afternoon? Did you find an appropriate amount of gold coins as loot but the wagons of stuff they hauled off from the town is "worthless" even though they cleaned out a silversmith, a brewery, and an alchemist? Combat as sport.

    Those are extreme experiences, but it's my experiences. I will not claim it's common or a good definition. Just experiences.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GrayDeath's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Heart of Europe
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Revisiting Combat as Sport vs Combat as War

    JNow, prefacing that I didnt start to play D&D outside of Eye of the Beholder unti 3rd was well and right on its way, I heard of both things described in my 2 groups at that time, but obviously (there was no Internet and we are not English^^) under different terms.

    Back then, we called it "DSA Combat" and "Shadowrun Combat".

    DSA Combat meant that either the fight had no real meaning, as the actual Star of the adventure, the NPC we were following (Sarcasm level 3^^) would start doing something if it went bad, or even if it did go bad, we would at most be prisoner for a day and then get everything but lost arrows/some money back.
    So our go on it was "go in, dont think too much, enjoy roleplaying it!". very often the Adventure even demanded certain battles be lost.


    Shadowrun Coimbat was the term for "Spend 7 hours planning the combat, and less than 20 Minutes doing it.
    It meant we tried our utmost to make the run as smooth, slick and eprfectly executed as we could. And while we did still roleplay a lot, it was roleplaying semi "pros" who would wait until the paycheck to do something that could endanger said paycheck.
    Losing here in the best case meant wasting lots of ingame ressources and loads of time, in the worst case we ere dead or gunea pigs for Renraku.



    So while I am by no means an expert on the terms, for us it was more a "the Combat and what happens before/during/after count" and "Only the Result counts".
    A neutron walks into a bar and says, “How much for a beer?” The bartender says, “For you? No charge.”

    01010100011011110010000001100010011001010010000001 10111101110010001000000110111001101111011101000010 00000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001011 100010111000101110

    Later: An atom walks into a bar an asks the bartender “Have you seen an electron? I left it in here last night.” The bartender says, “Are you sure?” The atom says, “I’m positive.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •