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

[Aldarc]

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.

You have a problem with a comparison with Pro Wrestling as a comparison because it's a scripted performance in a thread about Combat as Theater? Regardless of whether it scripted or not, the point is that it's more about the spectacle, character expression, and dramatic beats.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You have a problem with a comparison with Pro Wrestling as a comparison because it's a scripted performance in a thread about Combat as Theater? Regardless of whether it scripted or not, the point is that it's more about the spectacle, character expression, and dramatic beats.

And that's the same with every other dramatic portrayal of combat, whether or not it's Saving Private Ryan, John Wick or Wrestlemania XXXIV. Pro Wrestling is no more or less relevant inspiration than any other scripted combat performance when talking about RPG combat.

 

[Aldarc]

And that's the same with every other dramatic portrayal of combat, whether or not it's Saving Private Ryan, John Wick or Wrestlemania XXXIV. Pro Wrestling is no more or less relevant inspiration than any other scripted combat performance when talking about RPG combat.

What is your point? Maybe we are talking past each other because Pro Wrestling itself is not the point. It's not even the main point of inspiration. It gets mentioned ONCE in all that I wrote. ONCE. In a post about Combat as Theater.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

What is your point? Maybe we are talking past each other because Pro Wrestling itself is not the point. It's not even the main point of inspiration. It gets mentioned ONCE in all that I wrote. ONCE. In a post about Combat as Theater.

Once? Half of this thread is about Pro Wrestling. My point is that the pro wrestling discussion is a distraction. And now you've got me perpetuating that distraction, Pelor help us...

 

[Scribe]

Once? Half of this thread is about Pro Wrestling. My point is that the pro wrestling discussion is a distraction. And now you've got me perpetuating that distraction, Pelor help us...

Yeah but thats because half of the thread is, intentionally or not, missing the point of the OP.

Frankly, the OP was so correct there doesnt even need to have been discussion, its just a correct observation that should have been seen as an illumination and accepted.

 

[Steady Vane]

Sport vs War is also sort of feeling around an issue of what the combat part of the game focuses on, or is abstracted to.

War description implies the combat is informed by and has consequences for things outside the combat, but it largely a series of battles one after another. It implies a macro view of combat. Each battles is a little zoomed out in terms of impact.

Sport description implies "moments" in each combat are what matters, and combats have ~little impact on the outside campaign. This means a zoomed-in combat system that focuses on individual moments a lot.

Spectacle or Theater are somewhere in between. Combat as expression that informs the out of combat campaign, but also with some focus on individual moments per combat, as opposed to War where combat is almost a chore to be avoided.

Long-winded way to say that each type implies slightly different rules and levels of abstraction. You could run combat as any of these types, but the rules system you use will probably naturally lend itself to one of the styles.

 

[Steady Vane]

TL;DR OSR and 3.5 play differently, shocking I know

 

[Gadget]

As someone who was present for the original CaW vs CaS thread, I think some historical context has been lost. It was originally part of the 4e edition war, where many felt the came had gone too far into narrative computer game simulations, and this was a well thought out explanation of why some people couldn't get behind the 'new' system (though perhaps a trifle unfair to 4e imho).

In the original definition CaW, more on DM adjudication was required, not less. This was due to the gritty, off book, or sometimes even silly, strategies and methods players in this mode would come up with that needed DM interpretation to apply to a more loose rule set. It was more about the social contract of what type of game the DM and the players wanted, how well the players met the DM expectation of what was appropriate and/or clever. Sure, most examples where from older editions were the rules themselves were less forgiving and therefore this style is perceived as more 'gritty,' but that does not necessarily have to be the case.

Furthermore, one could argue that CaS requires less "DM thumb on the scale" because the system itself (for systems designed to accommodate it, as the last couple of editions have been, I would argue) does that already by being "balanced" (for some definition of balance). Not that DM fudging can't or doesn't take place in CaS, rules only get you so far.

As for CaT, that is an interesting notion, and I think either previous style could be bent in that direction.