PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kaerli_Stronwylle on July 04, 2015, 11:20:42 pm
-
So, I was reading an article about combat in D&D (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles#post5803896) and was wondering if the core thesis applied to how we RP combat in PS as well, with some players leaning much more strongly towards sport and others much more strongly towards war...or is there some overpowering reason that we should stick to one side of this divide or the other?
Discuss, flame, whatever...
-
Why not both?
-
There is no such thing as war or sport. You play depending on your character. Not depending on you.
Jilerel will most likely make fair duels and all this stuff, but if he absolutely needs to, he will fight like in "the war style".
Me, as a player, just act like : What would Jilerel do ?
You shouldn't think about how to fight, but how would your character fight.
Will your character fight fairly (insert whatever "sport style action")? Will your character blackmail the opponent (insert whatever "war style action")?
-
Jilerel, the D&D forum wasn't discussing rationale for preferences in flair or style, but the mechanics of modelling for either “CAS” or “CAW” with D&D rules.
There is no such thing as war or sport.
Perhaps you meant that there isn't a dichotomy of « War – Sport » insofar as the two aren't on the same metaphysical level, or so. To that I agree, but see below.
Candy, you most certainly can develop fundamental rules that support both systems — just depends on how you structure the rule environment and what player interest–themes you are accommodating; do you want to restrict players from cheating in sport? or are the players capable of agreeing per each engagement as to how they will conduct it? et c.
Kaerli, interesting read, but I've seen this as a much broader consideration than simply regarding Combat and Sport, and most people here aren't interested in expanding and redefining their ideas for what role–play is or could be, or why most RPGs aren't proper role-playing games anyway.
-
Why not both?
This determines how we hew what we consider "allowable" -- combat as sport means that trying to use spells off-label and prepare elaborate tricks before a fight is frowned upon, while combat as war means that trying to force sportsmanship is frowned upon, and highly involved tactical play isn't as useful either.
I find myself rather splitting down the middle -- I like the tricky stuff because I like ingenious approaches to problems, but the tactical side has an allure for me as well...
-
I find myself rather splitting down the middle -- I like the tricky stuff because I like ingenious approaches to problems, but the tactical side has an allure for me as well...
For the more competitive stuff, I really think the game mechanics are better. (as in PVP). The game itself can be relied on to make unbiased calls. The thing is, it can't do that for RP. A possible solution for fusing the two might be to use the mechanics to perform an action, then stop and RP based on the results of each action. ie. if an attack lands, then the attacker would RP landing a successful attack. You would end up with a turn based rp, but at least neither side could fudge things. The one big downfall to this though is that some spells do damage/protection over time. The other downfall is that it would only appeal to players who wish to level their characters.
-
For the more competitive stuff, I really think the game mechanics are better. (as in PVP). The game itself can be relied on to make unbiased calls.
not in poorly designed, unbalanced systems such as <REDACTED>
-
No, I'm just saying if the player wants player vs player and not character vs character and runs into difficulty with agreeing on damage with fellow players, then just go with mechanics. Those who don't want to do that will opt out.
-
I echo Jilerel.
Why is the divide war/sport?
/me is quite confused by that o.O