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

[Minigiant]

OUTSIDE TANGENT BUT NOT REALLY

one of the main divides in the pro wrestling community is one between the preference of an indie style of wrestling compared to the mainstream weekly style of wrestling,

In the indie style of wrestling, one of the most prevalent aspects of it is the idea of" getting your stuff in".

Because indy wrestlers typically are contract wrestlers, they strive to make sure that they do their signature moves and say their cash phases. Every time they appear because they do not have regular weekly appearances..

This is different from wrestlers who are in mainstream weekly, televised wrestling companies who do not need to do their signature actions every time they appear. In those companies, character and driving towards what their character would do is the most important. Aspect outside of the match itself.

So that's my question to you OP @Aldarc or others.

Which is more important in Combat as Theater?

That the palatin uses Divine Smite to divinely smite evil..

OR

That the story sets up a battle for the paladin to fight evil in which Divin Smite may or may not happen.

???

 

[Scribe]

Which is more important in Combat as Theater?

That the palatin uses Divine Smite to divinely smite evil..

OR

That the story sets up a battle for the paladin to fight evil in which Divin Smite may or may not happen.

???

To me, the former. The rest is outside combat.

 

[Clint_L]

I think every encounter should be built and run with story first in mind. That has nothing to do with challenge.

 

[Retros_x]

Hm. On the one hand I like your ideas. On the other hand I wonder - is it actually a third missing mode or is it a complete different category? The former two modes are concerned with mechanics, mainly balance. Combat as war means unbalanced combat, players need to use every dirty track. Combat as sport means balanced, players can rely on every combat being winnable if they just press the right buttons on the character sheet.

Combat as theatre, as you phrased it, is not concerned with mechanics at all, I think it actually describes a different quality, the amount of roleplay in combat for example. So its a different problem dimension. There might be a 4 axis system to describe different combat modes: The axis of mechanics (sport vs war), the axis of roleplay (theatre/spectacle vs ??? - pure gameplay driven?)

 

[BenjaminPey]

sure, but the rules don't improve or reduce your chances of success of any of those options based on narrative apropos or have any mechanics intended to factor in player story desires is their point i think.

Adv/Dis is right there for apropos. Heroic inspiration, too. That would improve or reduce your chance of success.

If I urge my father to flee before I kill him, that's an Influence check (a rule is used, with which you can interact, you can have feats, class features, etc. related to that). If I'll do it with flair and everybody applaude, or if I'll use my free interaction to take off the sash he offered me at my 15th birthday and throw it away, maybe the DM will give me advantage on this check (again, a rule is used). The DM can also award me heroic inspiration for this scene, inspiration that will be used to better whack a latter foe (another rule).

Also, the fact that the encounter is not really about the challenge it represents doesn't make the rules suddenly disappear, nor that the situation won't be or shoulnd't be challenging for that matter. Maybe there's less of a disconnect between combat rules and other rules, because you'll often use general rules in combat, that much is true. But that's more rules used, not less.

 

[Aldarc]

Hm. On the one hand I like your ideas. On the other hand I wonder - is it actually a third missing mode or is it a complete different category?

Yes, but I would also naturally like to think so as the OP of this thread.

The former two modes are concerned with mechanics, mainly balance. Combat as war means unbalanced combat, players need to use every dirty track. Combat as sport means balanced, players can rely on every combat being winnable if they just press the right buttons on the character sheet.

I'm not sure if they are concerned with mechanics so much as they are about aims and approaches. You can play, for example, 5e D&D as CaW but also as CaS. However, as @Umbran said, the design philosophy of 5e is oriented more towards the latter, arguably more so now in 5.5 than 5.0.

Likewise, there are games out there, IMHO, that mechanically support CaT. Two such games have been mentioned and discussed briefly prior: i.e., Daggerheart and Fabula Ultima. However, I also mistakenly posted this thread in the D&D subforum when I meant to post it in General. The upside is that this clearly generated more eyes on this thread, and I have been delighted with its positive response. However, the downside is that the primary context for discussion will likely be D&D and not these other games, and I would like to respect that.

Combat as theatre, as you phrased it, is not concerned with mechanics at all, I think it actually describes a different quality, the amount of roleplay in combat for example. So its a different problem dimension. There might be a 4 axis system to describe different combat modes: The axis of mechanics (sport vs war), the axis of roleplay (theatre/spectacle vs ??? - pure gameplay driven?)

IMHO, Combat as Theater should be not equated with roleplay. It's more about combat as an approach that emphasizes drama and character expression. Even if our characters are there to win, we are not there to overcome an asymmetric encounter or solve/overcome a balanced one. The combat encounter exists as theater that should reveal character and generate narrative drama. Mechanically, that is its purpose. This may involve symmetric or asymmetric combat. The symmetry of the situation isn't the point. We may even be interested in losing combat in order to generate dramatic outcomes.

But to be clear, this thread is about exploring the idea of Combat as Theater. It's not set in stone. If it exists, which I optimistically believe does, then we are all here hammering it out.

 

[TwoSix]

IMHO, Combat as Theater should be not equated with roleplay. It's more about combat as an approach that emphasizes drama and character expression. Even if our characters are there to win, we are not there to overcome an asymmetric encounter or solve/overcome a balanced one. The combat encounter exists as theater that should reveal character and generate narrative drama. Mechanically, that is its purpose. This may involve symmetric or asymmetric combat. The symmetry of the situation isn't the point. We may even be interested in losing combat in order to generate dramatic outcomes.

Agreed here. The choice an individual or group makes to apply thespianism or dramatic flourishes to any aspect of TTRPG play is almost completely orthogonal to mechanics. It's a much different aspect of play as opposed to whether the mechanics of play are focused on providing opportunities for character growth and character spotlight moments.

 

[GobHag]

I would also like to suggest that thinking that CaT has to reveal characterization or show thematic element is a mistake, the other meaning of theatrical is 'exaggerated actions/movements'--That's why while I understand Combat As Performance is seen as derogatory, because those that devised that term does say it derogatorily, it is accurate when the theatrics is using mechanics/buildcrafting to be cool; Combos, huge dice and numbers.

An example is the Magus in PF2, who can both cast and attack in a single action(2 action points really but let's not sweat the small stuff) and then needs to recharge, it encourages you to stack up bonuses for that one big hit but that's not always the best strategic move and the class itself has the tools to excel even outside of their ideal set-up... but an encounter where that set-up can't happen or is made useless is considered bad(Damage limit, ghosts, 5e style resistances). They'll likely to be fine wasting a spell-slot just to naughty word obliterate one goblin out of 10 but if they prepared Polar Ray and you made the boss immune to Ice they'd grumble about it non-stop,

CaT uses mechanics as either props and/or prompts, Daggerheart's good at CaT not really because it has lighter rules but because it's PC abilities are clearly defined while also being 'cool'--torches can be used as weapons, lighting things on fire and a light source... but it isn't cool; You neither role a gajillion huge dice nor does your brain create an amazing hype-edit when you use it.

 

[GobHag]

The defining advice for War is to play at the world, for Combat it's the Challenge Rating, for Theatrical it's to shoot the monk

 

[bedir than]

I keep coming back to read this and haven't commented because I don't think I have something to add

BUT, I wanted the OP to know that they are seen