PDA

View Full Version : Can Dungeon World be Combat as War?



Blymurkla
2017-08-01, 04:07 AM
Yesterday, I was reminded of (was it in the 'Fight Me' thread? Can't seem to find it again) and re-read this great article (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.se/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html) which explains the difference between Combat as War and Combat as Sports. I also recently read Dungeon World for the first time and, having read both, asked my self 'can DW be played as combat as war'? I don't have a sure answer, so I'm coming here.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll try and define Combat as War. This is my definition, but I think it'll be fairly close to the article linked above (so if that one was tl;dr, this should serve as a summary). So, on the top of my head, some of the important stuff of combat as war is:

Resource management. You count every piece of ammunition and trail ration, they can become vital. You count time, keeping track of when torches burns out and the like.
The GM is (tries to be) an impartial, uncaring judge that portrays a living, dangerous world. The GM doesn't care about story or the PCs.
Random encounters / wandering monsters keeps pressure on the PC to act fast
There are no balanced combats, the players try to stack the odds in their favour
If the odds aren't in the PCs favour, they run
The players make elaborate plans in order to survive (rather than walking straight in, guns blazing, 'cause that's what heroes do). The plans often fail spectacularly
Equipment and information matters. Having 'piece of rope' written down on the character sheet or knowing that owlbears are nocturnal could save the PC's life.


I initially thought that Dungeon World would be nigh impossible to play as Combat as War, because Dungeon World is based on Apocalypse World. I've played AW quite a lot and in my experience, it's pretty much as far from Combat as War you can get (though it's not Combat as Sports either, there's a third option). In AW, you don't care much about resources. You sure as hell don't track time. The GM prioritize two things - making stuff that's flaming awesome and deliberately putting the PCs in deep ****. There's hardly even a combat system, so there can't be unbalanced (or balanced) encounters. Players don't make elaborate plans, and if they do, they don't involve details like 'piece of rope'. And lastly, not even the players care that much about whether their PCs succeed or not, because in AW what happens when you fail is often among the greatest moments in the game.

But I realise Dungeon World isn't necessarily played anywhere close to Apocalypse World. Dungeon World has trail rations and an encumbrance system. The play example includes a player checking what equipment his character is carrying. DW has more robust combat system than AW, with the monster section making clear that the GM shouldn't worry about setting up a balanced fight.

So, can DW be played as Combat as War?

Actana
2017-08-01, 05:28 AM
Using your definition of Combat as War, it's a clear cut no. The second point of "The GM is (tries to be) an impartial, uncaring judge that portrays a living, dangerous world. The GM doesn't care about story or the PCs." goes against Dungeon World's GM principles, especially the bolded part. The principles are there not to be broken, and as such there is an irreconcilable difference between the system and the definition.

That said, I don't think that definition is necessarily necessary for Combat as War to be a thing in the system. The other points you have aren't nearly as incompatible with Dungeon World as the second one. Only the first and the last points cause a bit of concern, as DW doesn't track things by the exact number (instead having "uses"), and many items can be used for a variety of situations without having to write down what exactly it has in it (ie Adventuring Gear). But I feel those differences aren't enough to warrant it being impossible by your definitions.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-01, 05:42 AM
I suppose you could if you really, really wanted to, but that would no longer be Dungeon World. That would be something similar but different that looks a lot like it.

If you wanted to do Combat as War, I'd just suggest using a system made for that from the ground up, rather than trying to mush DW into that box against its will.

Blymurkla
2017-08-01, 08:02 AM
Using your definition of Combat as War, it's a clear cut no. The second point of "The GM is (tries to be) an impartial, uncaring judge that portrays a living, dangerous world. The GM doesn't care about story or the PCs." goes against Dungeon World's GM principles, especially the bolded part. The principles are there not to be broken, and as such there is an irreconcilable difference between the system and the definition. If you could expand on this a bit, it would be lovely. But you're probably right.

The principle 'be a fan of the characters' sounds like something at odds with Combat as War, but the in-depth explanation reads like textbook CoW:

'Treat the players’ characters like characters you watch on TV. You want to seehow things turn out for them. You’re no there to make them lose, or to make them win, and defnitely not to guide them to your story. You’re here to portray the interesting world around them and see how interacting with that world changes everything.'

But other principles are perhaps the ones making CoW nigh impossible. 'Ask questions and use the answers' and 'draw maps, leave blanks' are probably hard to make work with a planned-out, internally consistent world that I imagine (almost?) always CoW relies on.



That said, I don't think that definition is necessarily necessary for Combat as War to be a thing in the system. The other points you have aren't nearly as incompatible with Dungeon World as the second one. Only the first and the last points cause a bit of concern, as DW doesn't track things by the exact number (instead having "uses"), and many items can be used for a variety of situations without having to write down what exactly it has in it (ie Adventuring Gear). But I feel those differences aren't enough to warrant it being impossible by your definitions. 'Uses' in DW sure aren't as detailed in minutiae as traditional, gritty, old-school D&D tracking rations, but there's still that all-important question »can I afford to carry this?« and there's still a decently predictability on when the uses are used up (for instance, a human ranger knows a ration isn't used up with the Make Camp move in a Dungeon, so a player expecting a dungeon can plan ahead and chose not to carry as much rations). Adventuring Gear and the way information is handled (like the Discern realities move) are perhaps bigger steps away from my definition of CoW, but I agree with you're conclusion that these hurdles don't invalidate a CoW style of play.


If you wanted to do Combat as War, I'd just suggest using a system made for that from the ground up, rather than trying to mush DW into that box against its will. You're right. You've got any good suggestions for such a system?

I'm aware that old D&D and other classics still exist (though I have absolutely no knowledge about some of them. Tunnels & Trolls, for instance) and I'm aware of the OSR movement and have played a bit but something still irks me. It's not what I want. For lack of a better word, I think I want a more modern take on Combat as War.

Actana
2017-08-01, 08:15 AM
If you could expand on this a bit, it would be lovely. But you're probably right.

The principle 'be a fan of the characters' sounds like something at odds with Combat as War, but the in-depth explanation reads like textbook CoW:

'Treat the players’ characters like characters you watch on TV. You want to seehow things turn out for them. You’re no there to make them lose, or to make them win, and defnitely not to guide them to your story. You’re here to portray the interesting world around them and see how interacting with that world changes everything.'

But other principles are perhaps the ones making CoW nigh impossible. 'Ask questions and use the answers[/i]' and 'draw maps, leave blanks' are probably hard to make work with a planned-out, internally consistent world that I imagine (almost?) always CoW relies on.

Pretty much what you said. DW's principles require the GM to have an active part in caring about the story and the PCs, which is directly in odds against the definition of having an uncaring GM. It's a case of definitions and wording, not necessarily intent of either. As said, I don't think an uncaring GM is required for CaW. More just... An objective one. A GM that doesn't care whether or not the PCs succeed or not. Play to Find Out What Happens is a something that both DW and CaW do, as far as the wording goes. The way they accomplish it differs a lot.


You're right. You've got any good suggestions for such a system?

I'm aware that old D&D and other classics still exist (though I have absolutely no knowledge about some of them. Tunnels & Trolls, for instance) and I'm aware of the OSR movement and have played a bit but something still irks me. It's not what I want. For lack of a better word, I think I want a more modern take on Combat as War.

If you want a contemporary RPG version of gritty dungeon crawling experiences, I'd highly recommend taking a look at Torchbearer. It's highly mechanical and rewards system mastery, but provides an incredibly tense and rewarding dungeon crawling experience that focuses around the nitty gritty details and low powered atmosphere where everything from the torch to rations to how much of each you're carrying matters.

Blymurkla
2017-08-01, 09:41 AM
If you want a contemporary RPG version of gritty dungeon crawling experiences, I'd highly recommend taking a look at Torchbearer. It's highly mechanical and rewards system mastery, but provides an incredibly tense and rewarding dungeon crawling experience that focuses around the nitty gritty details and low powered atmosphere where everything from the torch to rations to how much of each you're carrying matters. I've read Torchbearer, and come back to read it again, because some of its ideas are simply great. Haven't played it though.

But does it work for combat as war? I'm not sure. I've played quite a lot of Mouse Guard, which shares much of its rules system with Torchbearer*, and Mouse Guard sure ain't CaW. If you encounter a stream to cross and the GM is expecting a roll in Boatcrafter, you can say 'I'll track along the stream, seeing if I can find a fallen log where I can cross over'. But you aren't doing that because you, the player, thinks that would net you a lesser challenge but because your mouse's instinct is 'Always two feat on the ground and gaze straight ahead' or something like that. And the conflict system is 1) exceedingly soft on the PCs, it's almost impossible to lose so hard you can't get up again and 2) tactical in conflict, rather than strategic before conflict (you chose the right actions to defeat the hedgehog, you don't stack the odds in your favour beforehand by setting its burrow on fire).

So, I've read Torchbearer, thought 'neat' but discarded it as a game for CaW. Maybe I did it wrong.

* I know both are based on Burning Wheel, which I've yet to read. I've heard Mouse Guard be described as 'Burning Wheel light' and Torchbearer as 'Mouse Guard heavy'.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-08-01, 11:26 AM
I don't think Torchbearer is an especially good fit just because it relies too heavily on DM adjudication of failure to allow being truly impartial.

kyoryu
2017-08-01, 11:43 AM
Resource management. You count every piece of ammunition and trail ration, they can become vital. You count time, keeping track of when torches burns out and the like.
The GM is (tries to be) an impartial, uncaring judge that portrays a living, dangerous world. The GM doesn't care about story or the PCs.
Random encounters / wandering monsters keeps pressure on the PC to act fast
There are no balanced combats, the players try to stack the odds in their favour
If the odds aren't in the PCs favour, they run
The players make elaborate plans in order to survive (rather than walking straight in, guns blazing, 'cause that's what heroes do). The plans often fail spectacularly
Equipment and information matters. Having 'piece of rope' written down on the character sheet or knowing that owlbears are nocturnal could save the PC's life.



I agree with the bolded items as "Combat as War", and think that they can be reasonably done in Dungeon World.

The other items I think are more about the "survival horror" nature of old-school D&D, and aren't necessarily a "combat as war" thing.

While it's true that in DW you're inclined to leave blanks and ask questions and what not, once an answer is given it's as set in stone as if it was from a published module - more so, perhaps.

The key to doing "combat as war" is to play up the realities of combat, and either allow/disallow attacks based on what's going on. Going for positional advantage instead of number-optimization is very much a combat as war strategy, and works really, really well with Dungeon World.

I'd actually argue that DW doesn't really offer up a rich enough "combat model" to be a really good combat as sport game.

Airk
2017-08-01, 11:45 AM
Using your definition of Combat as War, it's a clear cut no. The second point of "The GM is (tries to be) an impartial, uncaring judge that portrays a living, dangerous world. The GM doesn't care about story or the PCs." goes against Dungeon World's GM principles, especially the bolded part. The principles are there not to be broken, and as such there is an irreconcilable difference between the system and the definition.

This is... so wrong. o.o The DW principles don't say that AT ALL.

There is NOTHING in the DW agenda/principles that instructs you to "Care" about the story (or indeed, any principles that use the word "story" at all). The closest you get is "Play to find out what happens" which is pretty much the opposite of "Care about the story" - it's saying "The point of this exercise is to find out what happens, not decide what happens." which is extremely compatible with Combat as War.

There is "be a fan of the characters" but that has been many times clarified to NOT mean "Be nice to the characters" or "avoid killing the characters" but rather to mean "Give the characters what they need to have awesome victories and defeats". As in "Don't play softball." Which is also very compatible with combat as war.

All that said, the list of stuff in the OP doesn't jive with my understanding of "Combat as war" in the slightest - most of that is just "OSR stuff" which is often related to but not the same as Combat As War. Combat As War means:


Combat is not expected to be "balanced"
In fact, you want combat to be unbalanced
Pick your battles
Avoiding combat unless it is on your terms
Winning combat with as little risk as possible
Not fighting fair
Avoiding engaging the mechanics of combat


This is contrast to "Combat as Sport" which has the assumptions that A) Encounters will be balanced and B) It's the party's job to engage those encounters and have a good time fighting them in a tactical battle game and C) The party should avoid too much shenanigans that would tilt the fight in their favor before engaging because that makes B boring and unfun.

So yes, by a non-inflated definition of "Combat As War" Dungeon World does it almost by default.

Edit: Yeah, I basically agree with Kyoryu.

Tanarii
2017-08-01, 11:49 AM
Neither DW nor Torchbearer will work as combat as war. They're intentionally focusing on things that combat as war doesn't care at all about, and intentionally making background/minor issues things that combat as war cares a lot about.


But mainly:
Combat as war focuses on players being able to interact with an non-narrative, causal world.

Dungeon world and torchbearer focus on players being able to interact with an narrative, non-causal world.

There's no way to reconcile that.

Airk
2017-08-01, 12:11 PM
Neither DW nor Torchbearer will work as combat as war. They're intentionally focusing on things that combat as war doesn't care at all about, and intentionally making background/minor issues things that combat as war cares a lot about.


But mainly:
Combat as war focuses on players being able to interact with an non-narrative, causal world.

Dungeon world and torchbearer focus on players being able to interact with an narrative, non-causal world.

There's no way to reconcile that.

Bolded line is completely incorrect, therefore, all conclusions based upon it are invalid.

Where are you getting the idea that Dungeon World is some sort of crazy narrative game? Double that for Torchbearer.

Tanarii
2017-08-01, 12:23 PM
Bolded line is completely incorrect, therefore, all conclusions based upon it are invalid.

Where are you getting the idea that Dungeon World is some sort of crazy narrative game? Double that for Torchbearer.DW is all about fiction first, and results of actions being determine narratively. Same with torchbearer, although it doesn't call it that. All resolution rules are based around the concept of narrative resolution.

Edit: it's possible I'm getting some torchbearer resolution confused with AW/DW. But AW/DW is definitely all about narrative resolution. That's the entire point.

kyoryu
2017-08-01, 12:30 PM
DW is all about fiction first, and results of actions being determine narratively. Same with torchbearer, although it doesn't call it that. All resolution rules are based around the concept of narrative resolution.

Edit: it's possible I'm getting some torchbearer resolution confused with AW/DW. But AW/DW is definitely all about narrative resolution. That's the entire point.

"Fiction first," as used in PbtA games, doesn't mean "do what's necessary for the story."

It means "Start by describing what your character is doing in the world, in terms of the world. Only then do you apply rules, if they're even necessary."

"Fiction first" is completely and utterly orthogonal to combat as sport/war. And it has nothing to do with "narrative causality".

Edit: What do you mean by "narrative resolution"? I don't even know what that means.

Actana
2017-08-01, 12:36 PM
This is... so wrong. o.o The DW principles don't say that AT ALL.

There is NOTHING in the DW agenda/principles that instructs you to "Care" about the story (or indeed, any principles that use the word "story" at all). The closest you get is "Play to find out what happens" which is pretty much the opposite of "Care about the story" - it's saying "The point of this exercise is to find out what happens, not decide what happens." which is extremely compatible with Combat as War.

There is "be a fan of the characters" but that has been many times clarified to NOT mean "Be nice to the characters" or "avoid killing the characters" but rather to mean "Give the characters what they need to have awesome victories and defeats". As in "Don't play softball." Which is also very compatible with combat as war.

For what it's worth, that wasn't really what I meant. To me, the word "uncaring" is very much explicitly in contrast to "be a fan of the characters". Being a fan of the PCs means caring about what they do, it means being invested in what they do whether it's a success or not, but it doesn't mean the GM has to allow them success always. And then you have the word "uncaring" which I feel is in opposition to that: no investment in the PCs, they do things what they do but the story isn't about them, it's about the overall situation the PCs just happen to be in.

In the end it's a matter of language and semantics, not intentions. I do see what is meant by the intentions (especially now that it's been clarified a bit), but with the words given I think they're in opposition. Not sure what word I'd use to replace it though. Possibly "objective", but I don't really like that either. Impartial, perhaps?

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-01, 02:40 PM
DW is all about fiction first, and results of actions being determine narratively. Same with torchbearer, although it doesn't call it that. All resolution rules are based around the concept of narrative resolution.

Edit: it's possible I'm getting some torchbearer resolution confused with AW/DW. But AW/DW is definitely all about narrative resolution. That's the entire point.

I'll double down on the criticism. "Fiction first" refers to the fiction layer of the game, as opposed to the mechanics layer.

Think of it like this:
In the mechanics layer: you hit the goblin for 5 damage.
In the fiction layer: your blade cleaves a meaty chunk from the goblin's forearm, rendering its hand limp as the blood flows freely. It snarls in rage.

For Apocalypse World, the fiction layer determines the mechanic to be used, not the other way around.

In PbtA systems, you cannot say:
"I'm going to Go Aggro on this guy."
That doesn't work. What you CAN say is:

"I tell dremmer that if he doesn't stop his yapping, I'm going to cut out his kidney and feed it to him."
This fiction action triggers the Go Aggro move.

Apocalypse World doesn't enforce narrative causality for its own sake. In fact, it stresses the idea of doing what makes sense first and foremost.

Airk
2017-08-01, 04:02 PM
DW is all about fiction first,

Yeah, as has been made abundantly clear here, you have a critical misunderstanding of what "fiction first" means.



and results of actions being determine narratively. Same with torchbearer, although it doesn't call it that. All resolution rules are based around the concept of narrative resolution.

If by "narrative resolution" you mean "you resolve what ends up happening next in the narrative" then yes, you are correct, just like in pretty much every RPG ever. Otherwise, I have no idea what that even means.



Edit: it's possible I'm getting some torchbearer resolution confused with AW/DW. But AW/DW is definitely all about narrative resolution. That's the entire point.

I'm pretty sure it's not, because no one else in this thread even seems to know what "narrative resolution" is.

Tanarii
2017-08-01, 06:05 PM
Yeah, you guys clearly either haven't read the same AW I did, or didn't pay any attention to the rules for the MC. Everything on his list of 'moves' is narrative resolution. He is explicitly instructed to work narratively multiple times, from fiction first, to letting the story emerge, to never speaking his move.

Likewise, half or more the results of player's attempting a mechanical move, and failing, result in narrative resolution.

AW/DW is the first set of narrative-based mechanics I've ever read that looks like it'll work well to cause an emergent story, assuming that's what a group is looking for. Because it's not only its stated goal (per above), but it appears to have solid mechanics design around the idea of narrative resolution.

kyoryu
2017-08-01, 06:28 PM
Can you please define what you mean by "narrative resolution", since you seem to use that term a lot and nobody seems to know what you mean by it?

What does "let the story emerge" (aka, don't railroad) have to do with anything?

What does "fiction first" (starting with what's happening in the world) have to do with anything?

What does "not speaking your move" have to do with anything?

I'm really not understanding what you're saying here.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-01, 09:24 PM
Yeah, you guys clearly either haven't read the same AW I did, or didn't pay any attention to the rules for the MC. Everything on his list of 'moves' is narrative resolution.
The only way I can interpret it such that it makes your previous point sensical is if "narrative resolution" means a thing best meant to serve a narrative function rather than being what makes sense in context.

Apocalypse World, I'm 100% positive, demands you do what makes sense. Describing outcomes using narrative terms is no different from how bad things happen in d&d except they take the time to list possibilities. An intimidate going south can end exactly as a Go Aggro does. They just don't mention explicitly how it might.



He is explicitly instructed to work narratively multiple times, from fiction first
letting the situation the characters are in determine what makes sense to do mechanically is Narrative Reasoning how?


to letting the story emerge,
You are currently arguing that mot having a pre-planned narrative makes you more likely to do things for the sake of the narrative. I'm just gonna let that speak for itself.



to never speaking his move.

You seriously need to reread this section of the book because you don't understand what it says even a little bit.
NOT explicitly saying "I am now Making You Pay" is the same as making a decision for the sake of story... how?



Likewise, half or more the results of player's attempting a mechanical move, and failing, result in narrative resolution.

So when a D&D character fails a climb check... nothing happens? They remain on the ground with no problem?



AW/DW is the first set of narrative-based mechanics I've ever read that looks like it'll work well to cause an emergent story, assuming that's what a group is looking for. Because it's not only its stated goal (per above), but it appears to have solid mechanics design around the idea of narrative resolution.
It does indeed do emergent story well. In fact, it forbids doing otherwise. Explicitly. If you're not working with emergent narrative, you're MCing the game wrong.

I'm very confused both by what you mean by "narrative resolution" other than a garbled something that means whatever it needs to right now, and how it has anything to do with these points. >.>

I also agree that DW is unsuited to Combat as War, but your stated reasoning is flat-out wrong. I understand it can be difficult to grok if you've not played a game like it before, but I have enough experience talking via on the AW forums WITH VINCE because he's active there, than I'm fairly sure I know what I'm on about. >.>

Lord Raziere
2017-08-01, 09:37 PM
I have no horse in the Apocalypse World thing, but that post does explain and give good terms for the differences in play style in DnD that I've been struggling to explain! Thank you! I'm not a fan of CaW and much prefer Combat as Sport, mostly because I like my combat to actually happen and be long and awesome.

I would argue there is a third option called Combat As Theater where its not even playing tactical and playing it out as if its an action movie and doing whatever crazy dramatic thing you want no matter how impractical it is and succeeding because its about having the fight be awesome more than anything else, but thats just me.

neonchameleon
2017-08-02, 05:19 AM
Any game with escalating hit points and where there are no mechanics for long term injury is not and can not ever be described reasonably as Combat is War. Gygax had plenty of things to say about realism in games, none of them good - and for some D&D players to call players of other games Combat as Sport is like some American Football players calling other games sports and their own war because they crash into each other hard repeatedly.

Dungeon World is not and has never been Combat as War because D&D is no more Combat as War than American Football is. If you want Combat as War then my advice would be GURPS or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-02, 06:03 AM
Any game with escalating hit points and where there are no mechanics for long term injury is not and can not ever be described reasonably as Combat is War. Gygax had plenty of things to say about realism in games, none of them good - and for some D&D players to call players of other games Combat as Sport is like some American Football players calling other games sports and their own war because they crash into each other hard repeatedly.

Dungeon World is not and has never been Combat as War because D&D is no more Combat as War than American Football is. If you want Combat as War then my advice would be GURPS or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Or just a wargame. It seems to me that the expenditure of resources is meant to play a HUGE role.

In war, actual war, you get nothing accomplished without spending resources. Fuel, bullets, artillery shells, fuel, bombs, whatever you spend. It makes sense to me that in Combat as War, spending no resources at all should similarly get nothing done. (Or nearly nothing.) It either costs you great risk or static resources beyond just an ammo count.

War also tends to be long and drawn out (further disqualifying DW, since it can end entire conflicts in two or three rolls, easily.) And favors long-term strategy just above realtime tactics. There are many ways to do these two things, but they're not found in Dungeon World or D&D. (Except with spellcasters, in the latter. Which probably adds to the dissonance they cause at the table.)

kyoryu
2017-08-02, 11:21 AM
Or just a wargame. It seems to me that the expenditure of resources is meant to play a HUGE role.

In war, actual war, you get nothing accomplished without spending resources. Fuel, bullets, artillery shells, fuel, bombs, whatever you spend. It makes sense to me that in Combat as War, spending no resources at all should similarly get nothing done. (Or nearly nothing.) It either costs you great risk or static resources beyond just an ammo count.

War also tends to be long and drawn out (further disqualifying DW, since it can end entire conflicts in two or three rolls, easily.) And favors long-term strategy just above realtime tactics. There are many ways to do these two things, but they're not found in Dungeon World or D&D. (Except with spellcasters, in the latter. Which probably adds to the dissonance they cause at the table.)

That's not really "combat as war".

Combat as war is about approaching combat the way you would in an actual war - engage on the best terms you can. Ambush. Use overwhelming force, and attempt to win with no risk and no casualties. Sun-Tzuing them back to the stone ages. Or further, if you're playing in a stone age campaign.

Combat as sport is about having equal-ish sides, and having the individual decisions made during combat matter.

In a combat as sport game, most "encounters" should be interesting fights in and of themselves, with tension in the fight. In combat as war games, the goal is to *never* enter those types of fights, and doing so is already a failure. The idea of "balanced" encounters, in a combat as war game, is utterly silly. You want imbalance, and you want to make sure you're on the right side of that imbalance.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-02, 03:25 PM
That's not really "combat as war".

Combat as war is about approaching combat the way you would in an actual war - engage on the best terms you can. Ambush. Use overwhelming force, and attempt to win with no risk and no casualties. Sun-Tzuing them back to the stone ages. Or further, if you're playing in a stone age campaign.

Combat as sport is about having equal-ish sides, and having the individual decisions made during combat matter.

In a combat as sport game, most "encounters" should be interesting fights in and of themselves, with tension in the fight. In combat as war games, the goal is to *never* enter those types of fights, and doing so is already a failure. The idea of "balanced" encounters, in a combat as war game, is utterly silly. You want imbalance, and you want to make sure you're on the right side of that imbalance.

I don't see where any of what I said runs in conflict with this.

Thrudd
2017-08-02, 04:07 PM
I would think you could get the CAW feel in DW if you wanted. Since the consequences of failed actions (or successful enemy actions) are at the MC's discretion, you could make combat very dangerous with realistic-ish results. Fighting with weapons will always result in wounds with possible fatalities for someone, unless the combatants are making a point not to do so. No plot armor or convenient coincidences - if people are attacking you with deadly weapons it means they intend to kill you. The players should approach possible conflict with this in mind, from their character's POV, and make decisions accordingly. While resources might be abstracted, they should still be considered - rolling for "do I have this thing?" in between battles rather than during. If you failed to check for equipment and ammo and stock up prior to battle, then the answer should be "no, you don't have it" (unless it's a thing that is basically always there - like you wouldn't forget to put on your armor or strap on a sword. But you should make sure you aren't low on arrows).

kyoryu
2017-08-02, 04:57 PM
I don't see where any of what I said runs in conflict with this.

Consumption of resources, etc. is pretty orthogonal. It can be part of CaW or CaS, equally well.

I'd argue that in the original (Lake Geneva) D&D campaigns, CaW was basically expected. And it had escalating hit points and a number of other things you mentioned.

goto124
2017-08-03, 10:17 AM
What would be the benefits of running CaW in DW as opposed to... whatever systems are usually used for CaW?

In that vein, what systems are usually used for CaW? Torchbearer was recommended, are there other systems?

kyoryu
2017-08-03, 10:42 AM
What would be the benefits of running CaW in DW as opposed to... whatever systems are usually used for CaW?

Because you like the general flow of DW?


In that vein, what systems are usually used for CaW? Torchbearer was recommended, are there other systems?

Mostly old-school-ish games. Old versions of D&D (certainly pre-3e), Rolemaster, stuff like that. GURPS would probably work.

Any system without a combat system that is intended to be interesting in its own right, really. Because the point of CaW is to *avoid* "interesting" combat.

Airk
2017-08-03, 01:52 PM
I don't see where any of what I said runs in conflict with this.

I think the point is that what you said is neither necessarily part of Combat as War nor necessarily NOT a part of Combat as War. It's other stuff that can or can not be used that doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's "Combat as War" or not.


What would be the benefits of running CaW in DW as opposed to... whatever systems are usually used for CaW?

Because you don't like all the other OSR trappings that usually come with it? Mostly, people seem to run this in retro-clone games that bring along random chargen, laughably low PC hitpoints (in an effort to 'force' CaW, maybe?), an emphasis on looting and pillaging (XP for Gold Stolen), traditional initiative, etc.


In that vein, what systems are usually used for CaW? Torchbearer was recommended, are there other systems?

See above, but retroclones and other OSR games.