D&D General Combat as War vs. Sport and a Missing Third Mode

[Minigiant]

Combat as Professional Wrestling

Combat as Professional Wrestling is something else.

Pro Wrestling feuds have a structure based on building of wins and losses. Of structures.

In CaPW you dont want to keep winning because the story is building to a loss.

The point are the payoffs and hints and the build up to the final confrontation. So each side needs a way to swing things back in their favor until the unswingable arrives.

 

[Pamphylian]

I don’t think these three modes are mutually exclusive. In practice, most tables blend them. A group might use sport-like mechanics, war-like caution, and theater-like narration all at once. But explicitly recognizing “theater” as a distinct lens can help explain why different groups sometimes talk past each other when discussing combat expectations. This is to say that some of what likely gets classified and talked about as "combat as sport" is likely not sport at all; instead, it's theater!

Seems like a very useful distinction in terms of goals. I do wonder what mechanics scaffold this mode of combat best? For combat as war, I'd suppose the scaffolds would be robust resource management systems to connect the strategic intimately with the tactical; morale and other "wargamey" tools; items, equipment, mechanics and abilities that encourage open ended problem solving; and maybe fast combat resolution. For combat as sport, perhaps good encounter balance guidelines and good number of set-piece friendly monsters (eg. with complementary, chess-like combat rolls), hazards, and environments. Obviously many of these are beneficial to both modes, which is great, because as you say, many tables mix things. E.g. a good interface between tactical and strategic gives more weight to battles in combat as sport as well, it's just less integral to the combat itself. And likewise, good interlocking monster types (skirmishers, brutes, etc.) can liven up a combat as war scenario as well.

What about for combat as theater? I admit a lot of the tools and DMing approaches I've seen that maybe fit this mold I find rather unappealing (e.g. DMs excessively bending the course of events towards a desired narrative conclusion). The pathos of overcoming against odds or failing dramatically as a group and the complementary bathos of failing or succeeding for absurd reasons (ridiculously flawed plans, falling to weak enemies or mundane traps, unlucky or lucky rolls of the dice) that you might find in Combat as War usually fulfill most of my dramatic narrative needs, and naturally encourage dramatic events - for me I think most "artificial" tools for heightening drama would cheapen the outcome, and thus the narrative impact. But I'd be interested to hear if there are any particularly effective ones out there that would blend well with DnD style gaming.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Good point. I think that the original CaS/CaW thread was largely influenced by the perception of D&D as a wargame (fighting simulator, whatever) whereas more and more players nowadays play it as a storytelling medium.

 

[Marandahir]

As with Pro-Wrestling, I can see Combat as Theatre in a state where everyone knows the PCs are going to survive, that the DM will fudge the dice if need be to keep the game going rather than trying to TPK or trying to "let the dice lie where they fell" in some sort of rules arbitrational sport.

And despite knowing this actual real lack of tension over the characters surviving, the PCs are able to separate their own knowledge out from that of their characters and portray the characters are truly fighting for their lives, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a good distinction.

CaT is more closely related to CaS than it is to CaW, I think. And elements of all three can crop up even within a single combat, depending on the specific PCs and foes involved. A mustache-twirling villain monologuing during a dungeon's climatic battle - that's CaT and Ca(S or W) at the same time. A Paladin trying to subdue her foes while everyone else wants to kill 'em dead is CaS and CaW at the same time. And so on.

 

[Aldarc]

Thank you everyone for the productive conversation and feedback they have posted!

As with Pro-Wrestling, I can see Combat as Theatre in a state where everyone knows the PCs are going to survive, that the DM will fudge the dice if need be to keep the game going rather than trying to TPK or trying to "let the dice lie where they fell" in some sort of rules arbitrational sport.

And despite knowing this actual real lack of tension over the characters surviving, the PCs are able to separate their own knowledge out from that of their characters and portray the characters are truly fighting for their lives, etc.

Agreed. Some CaT may not involve the GM fudging dice because the GM doesn't roll in those games at all or maybe these games don't expect death except in special defined cases (see Fabula Ultima). In the context of D&D, however, I agree that it may involve fudging from GMs.

It's a good distinction.

CaT is more closely related to CaS than it is to CaW, I think. And elements of all three can crop up even within a single combat, depending on the specific PCs and foes involved. A mustache-twirling villain monologuing during a dungeon's climatic battle - that's CaT and Ca(S or W) at the same time. A Paladin trying to subdue her foes while everyone else wants to kill 'em dead is CaS and CaW at the same time. And so on.

There may be some overlap between Combat as War and Combat as Theater. For example, I'm not sure if Combat as Theater is necessarily as concerned about combat symmetry or balanced encounters or fairness as CaS often is. The asymmetry may even heighten the sense of dramatic stakes for the PCs. There may be some rough guidelines for building encounters in such games, but it also may not be that important for what the game is actually about. To that end...

Yes, I agree completely. Games like Daggerheart and a lot of superhero games embrace this style.

I think this might also cause some of the tension between players in games like D&D, where some players make decisions based on their characters' personalities, and others on best tactical choices. D&D attracts a very large and varied base.

Daggerheart was one of the games that I had in mind for this topic. There are guidelines for building encounters, but the "fairness" isn't really the point. Same with some games like Fabula Ultima. It's designed for emulating JRPGs, so there are combats. There are rules and guidance for building combat encounters, but it's still mostly Combat as Theater IMHO even if under the guise of Sport.

 

[Minigiant]

• Combat as War:
  • Challenge: Brutal Combat Encounters where NPCs, monsters, and obstacles have heavy advantage
  • Fail State: Entering combat before shifting the favor to the players side
• Combat as Sport:
  • Challenge: Balanced Combat Encounters designed to threaten survival
  • Fail State: Not adjusting tactics to match the combats puzzle
• Combat as Theater
  • Challenge: Creative Combat Encounters that have exciting stories
  • Fail State: A combat that is boring or anticlimactic
• Combat as Pro Wrestling
  • Challenge: Linked Combat Encounters that build of each other and the noncombat inbetween and highlights the Characters within
  • Fail State: A combat without a proper build, lead in, nor payoff

 

[Aldarc]

Combat as Professional Wrestling is something else.

Pro Wrestling feuds have a structure based on building of wins and losses. Of structures.

In CaPW you dont want to keep winning because the story is building to a loss.

The point are the payoffs and hints and the build up to the final confrontation. So each side needs a way to swing things back in their favor until the unswingable arrives.

You may be taking the whole "Pro Wrestling" thing a little too literally. I was just trying to communicate the theater and spectacle of what I was trying to convey. Or to point, ideas such as War, Sport, and Theater are generalized, but Professional Wrestling is oddly specific particularly in contrast with the other aforementioned categories.

 

[payn]

I think the scope of the CaW vs CaS had been increased here taking the original concept out of context. The original essay was comparing combat application in different editions of D&D. The why combat is happening isn’t important.

I think it’s due to the view by many that combat is firmly in the game realm of RPG. Such as a mode you shift between. This is reinforced by many comments about social rules being unnecessary because it’s just talking. The two are distinct in some minds.

So, I think the combat as theater is really asking folks to think outside RPG modes and consider more of RPG element blend. That combat isn’t merely mechanical but yet another element of the RP experience.

 

[Minigiant]

You may be taking the whole "Pro Wrestling" thing a little too literally. I was just trying to communicate the theater and spectacle of what I was trying to convey. Or to point, ideas such as War, Sport, and Theater are generalized, but Professional Wrestling is oddly specific particularly in contrast with the other aforementioned categories.

Its not that oddly specific.

CaT would be Encounter based story.
CaPW would be Dungeon based story.

Sorta like War and Story for story.

Pro Wrestling has a big emphasis on promotion, social interaction, and linking combats into a full story. Combat as Pro Wrestling would be the same.

Hero have to earn a shot at the champion. So Hero fights through the champions allies to get a match with the champion. The Champion interferes with the No 1 contenders match. The minions interfere with the Championship match to force a loss. You argue to get no interference or for allies with animosity with the Champion win on the second attempt.

The heroes enter the dungeon. The Dungeon boss uses Lair actions to disrupt fights with his minions. The minions counterspell the wizard's signature spell in the boss fight. The heroes flee and beg the local lord for aid. The heroes return with support. Smite, Fireball, Sneak Attack. BBEG flees. Victory