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

[Piperken]

Combat as Theater.

...In Combat as Theater:

• Combat becomes a vehicle for expression: showing who a character is under pressure, how relationships evolve, or how themes emerge in action.
• Outcomes are often appreciated not just for success/failure, but for how they feel in the unfolding narrative.
• Players and GMs emphasize vivid descriptions, cinematic moments, and dramatic choices.
• Turns and actions are framed to highlight character identity, tone, and story beats.

...Theater asks, “How do we make this scene compelling while expressing character and drama?" (These questions may vary but are meant to be more illustrative of general ideas.)

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...

...Curious how others see this. Do you think “combat as theater” is a distinct category, or just a byproduct of the other two?

One thing to keep in mind is there are long traditions everywhere for what is described above e.g. in wu xia novels and their derivatives, combat is about this.

Oral stories about different gods/goddesses, heroes/heroines etc. carry these elements. Think of The Iliad!

And in cultures where theatrical performance was intimately involved in religious expression (Greece, Japan), you'll find above traits expressed when particular characters are embodied. People recognize characters immediately based on how they appear, what they carry and what they do when combat transpires in front of the audience.

By extension, games that reproduce a few of these will tend to emphasize this style e.g. Hearts of Wulin or Mythic Bastionland.

 

[prabe]

My brother in Kayfabe, you're describing pro wrestling.

EDIT: RIP I realize I'm not the first person to introduce that analogy here

Actually, I'm not, because there's nothing in what I said that doesn't mean the outcome is still in doubt. If we're playing a game, it must be possible to lose.

 

[zakael19]

True "Combat as Sport" intentionally designed games are generally extremely anti-GM putting thumb on scale. If the GM is tweaking the play of the game, it invalidates all the work the players did when it came to character builds/choices/tactical decisions. Their rules tend towards being deterministic vs ruling in the moment as well.

True "Combat as Theatre" games probably remove inadvertent player-death from the scale entirely. Failure states there are most "what's at stake in the narrative" then "oops we all died." I actually don't fudge at all in Daggerheart, because I don't have to worry about "crap I made this too hard" - but I can use the adjudication rules of the game to allow for really dramatic and cool ideas to be tested with clear stakes and outcomes.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, I'm not, because there's nothing in what I said that doesn't mean the outcome is still in doubt. If we're playing a game, it must be possible to lose.

I think the point is the in Combat as Theater the party has a high chance of success and some losses would be mitigated.

But Combat as Pro Wrestling would have not qualms with the party losing. The Hurricane was not simply beating Stone Cold Steve Austin but it wasnt impossible via interference by a 3rd party.


Combat as War has the party at low chance among success unless they cheesed themselves a will.

Whereas Conbat as Sport makes it success chance a high stable percentage everyone know.

 

[prabe]

I think the point is the in Combat as Theater the party has a high chance of success and some losses would be mitigated.

But Combat as Pro Wrestling would have not qualms with the party losing. The Hurricane was not simply beating Stone Cold Steve Austin but it wasnt impossible via interference by a 3rd party.


Combat as War has the party at low chance among success unless they cheesed themselves a will.

Whereas Conbat as Sport makes it success chance a high stable percentage everyone know.

Again, the difference between pro wrestling and any sort of actual game is that in a game the outcome is in doubt--Steve Austin was always going to lose that match to the Hurricane, to use your example--so Combat as Pro Wrestling means the outcome of the fight is already decided. Not "the odds are weighted," pre-decided, before it begins.

 

[Umbran]

The major difference is that the players can affect the outcome of a sport, they're, well, players, but the players of a "theatrical" D&D game aren't players in the narrative; they're the audience.

In physics, there's a famous descriptor for a bad argument, "Not even wrong." It's means you are so off the mark that it doesn't even relate to the subject.

In the above, you are not even wrong.

I see posts claiming that the forms of combat (War, Sport, and Theatre) are about the GM's "thumb on the scales", they are all similarly wrong, in the sense that in Combat as Theatre there is no scale! There is no attempt to weigh anything! Combat as Theatre is not trying to test or compare! It is trying to generate character and drama moments.

Mechanics and randomizers are used to structure the scene, insert unforseen developments, and display the nature of the character.

In Hamlet, Laertes and Hamlet do not duel to see who is the better swordsman. And the GM isn't making one or the other of them win. They both die, because that's hugely dramatic, and follows the tragic themes of the piece.

 

[Umbran]

Combat as War is a duel to the death, no holds barred. To the point that if you can get your opponent to drink arsenic so he dies before entering the ring, all the better for you.

Combat as Sport is rugby, American football, or martial arts sparring for points. There is a serious test of prowess going on, and it is possible to get injured and taken out of play. But the test isn't specifically designed for that purpose.

Combat as theater is stage combat. You and your opponent are not there to test each other, but to put on a good show. Who dies or not is a matter of the show, not a test of skill. Which is not to say it is necessarily scripted or starts with a known conclusion - the show is frequently improvisational.

 

[Aldarc]

True "Combat as Sport" intentionally designed games are generally extremely anti-GM putting thumb on scale. If the GM is tweaking the play of the game, it invalidates all the work the players did when it came to character builds/choices/tactical decisions. Their rules tend towards being deterministic vs ruling in the moment as well.

True "Combat as Theatre" games probably remove inadvertent player-death from the scale entirely. Failure states there are most "what's at stake in the narrative" then "oops we all died." I actually don't fudge at all in Daggerheart, because I don't have to worry about "crap I made this too hard" - but I can use the adjudication rules of the game to allow for really dramatic and cool ideas to be tested with clear stakes and outcomes.

Fabula Ultima restricts when and how a PC can die. When reduced to 0 HP, the PC must either Sacrifice themselves or Surrender. The player's choice.

Surrendering comes with consequences. However, the PC can only Sacrifice themself when two of the three conditions are met: (1) a named Villain is present in the scene, (2) your sacrifice would benefit a character to whom you have a Bond, or (3) you believe that your sacrifice would make the world a better place. Those are the stipulations of PC death.

What this generally means is that typically Surrender is what happens when the PCs reach 0 HP. So players are not generally engaging in combat to determine whether they live or die, and it may not even be a fair combat at all, but it's meant to drive play towards dramatic moments, the affirmation of character identity and bonds, and narrative consequences. (Again, all meant to emulate JRPGs.)

 

[BenjaminPey]

I'd say Combat as Theatre doesn't mean that it is staged in the sense of there is a predetermined outcome, it can be (and often is) completly improvised and reactive. See the pbta motto: play to see what happens.

It also doesn't preclude death. Death can make for a very good show.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Whatever style of combat you're running, the DM could be fudging behind the screen to ensure a preferred outcome, or just let the dice decide. It mainly depends on how prepared the DM and players are to continue the story after a defeat for the player characters.

Realistically, neither CoW or CoS campaigns are likely to last very long without ending in TPK if the monsters have a real chance of winning every fight. CoT is probably more resilient to unexpected defeats, as a setback for the main characters is just leads to a different story.

I don't think the comparison to pro wrestling is particularly relevant. PW is a scripted performance, whereas RPGs are supposed to be unscripted. There are some storytelling techniques for combat that can be borrowed from PW of course, just like they can be from war movies and action movies.