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

[Retros_x]

Daggerheart literally has a system for sharing the spotlight, or focusing on one character as they get their power moment. 5e tells GMs to fudge rolls to make the story interesting. The style is indeed about mechanics, and deserves to be among the other two

Isnt that mechanic a general mechanic that works outside of combat too? But even if not, it is a different mechanic. I precised my point, that combat vs sport is mainly about balance, about symmetry. In combat as sport combat is symmetric, balanced and all your options are present on your character sheet ("pressing the buttons"), combat vs war is asymmetric and imbalanced and often players use ideas and tactics that are not present on the character sheet (like the famous example of flooding a dungeon or smoking it out).

Combat as theatre, even with mechanics like the one you describe of Daggerheart, feels wrong in that comparison, as I stated, I think its concerned with a different quality and such a different axis/spectrum.

But, of course, the (IIRC former) existence of 4thcore is inconvenient for the "CaW"/"CaS" dichotomy, so it gets completely ignored.

Or you know I just never played. Sorry if I offended you. I of course over simplified it for the sake of my argument, and there might be some unsucessfull editions of DnD that do not guarantee win in a balanced encounter, but I still firmly believe that at its core sport vs war is about mechanics and balance and symmetry.

Combat as Theater should be not equated with roleplay. It's more about combat as an approach that emphasizes drama and character expression.

I did not equate it I said it is on a different problem vector than war vs sport, one that is more related to roleplay. Also drama and character expression sound very much more like roleplay than like mechanics.

This may involve symmetric or asymmetric combat. The symmetry of the situation isn't the point.

That was exactly my point! War vs Sport is about symmetry and balance, that why combat as theatre as you describe it is concerned with a different category.

But to be clear, this thread is about exploring the idea of Combat as Theater.

I do understand that and I participate in exploring that idea: My contribution, as I repeat: I believe it combat as theatre, as you describe it, is concerned with a different quality of combat than the sport vs war axis. There might be a 4th missing piece, the opposite end of the spectrum where combat as theatre might lie.

 

[Aldarc]

I did not equate it I said it is on a different problem vector than war vs sport, one that is more related to roleplay. Also drama and character expression sound very much more like roleplay than like mechanics.

That was exactly my point! War vs Sport is about symmetry and balance, that why combat as theatre as you describe it is concerned with a different category.

I do understand that and I participate in exploring that idea: My contribution, as I repeat: I believe it combat as theatre, as you describe it, is concerned with a different quality of combat than the sport vs war axis. There might be a 4th missing piece, the opposite end of the spectrum where combat as theatre might lie.

I remain unconvinced, and I don't actually agree with your points here. I'm not sure if maintaining the binary of Sport vs. War is helpful, even if it involves putting Theater on a different axis.

 

[BenjaminPey]

I can't understand for the life of me why "fudging rolls" should be more CaT than CaW or CaS. "Fudging rolls" is an age old technique to circumvent undesirable outcomes, and a "game over" state could be as undesirable in CaT as it is in CaW or CaS.
On the other hand, a character dying or a scenario short-circuited doesn't translate to "game over" every time for everybody, and no more in CaT than in Caw or CaS. Fudging rolls is orthogonal to all of that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I feel like we're re-inventing the older "Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist" idea but framing it slightly differently - and carrying the same issues.

The "Combat as X" framework seems to be written by CaW/Simulationist gamers and so slightly advantages their own ideas while not quite understanding others, but that's the same flaw GNS has (in a different direction.)

The other thing to remember is: for most actual players, the difference in style is more about the order of priorities, rather than what thise priorities are. A CaS/Gamist player cares about the game itself being fun above immersion or telling a story - but they care about all three.

Of course now there's a part of my brain trying to invent a third taxonomy that favors CaS/Gamist priorities in its framing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I can't understand for the life of me why "fudging rolls" should be more CaT than CaW or CaS. "Fudging rolls" is an age old technique to circumvent undesirable outcomes, and a "game over" state could be as undesirable in CaT as it is in CaW or CaS.
On the other hand, a character dying or a scenario short-circuited doesn't translate to "game over" every time for everybody, and no more in CaT than in Caw or CaS. Fudging rolls is orthogonal to all of that.

i think the reasoning is that in CaT the dice are often treated as more secondary to telling a good story, whereas in Sport and War the dice are given more weight and respect, when fudging is done in those two (if at all seeing as War is more inclined to let the dice lie where they fall: if you lose then you should've made better decisions) to 'avoid negative outcomes' whereas in Theatre i believe it would be used far more often than in the other two would ever to 'achieve desirable outcomes' towards compelling story beats.

 

[jmartkdr2]

i think the reasoning is that in CaT the dice are often treated as more secondary to telling a good story, whereas in Sport and War the dice are given more weight and respect, when fudging is done in those two (if at all seeing as War is more inclined to let the dice lie where they fall: if you lose then you should've made better decisions) to 'avoid negative outcomes' whereas in Theatre i believe it would be used far more often than in the other two would ever to 'achieve desirable outcomes' towards compelling story beats.

Even in CaT fudging isn't recommended for getting "good" results, just to avoid the whole thing falling apart. The dice are supposed to provide surprises, after all.

 

[Pedantic]

I feel like we're re-inventing the older "Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist" idea but framing it slightly differently - and carrying the same issues.

The "Combat as X" framework seems to be written by CaW/Simulationist gamers and so slightly advantages their own ideas while not quite understanding others, but that's the same flaw GNS has (in a different direction.)

The other thing to remember is: for most actual players, the difference in style is more about the order of priorities, rather than what thise priorities are. A CaS/Gamist player cares about the game itself being fun above immersion or telling a story - but they care about all three.

Of course now there's a part of my brain trying to invent a third taxonomy that favors CaS/Gamist priorities in its framing.

I don't really think CaW/CaS fit neatly along a S/G lines, assuming you're defining "gamism" in terms of player facing mechanical interactions. That feels like it's primarily concerned with how defined player actions are (do they emerge from the player/GM understanding of the world and thematic/physical interactions, or do are they specified by the rules text?) not with the scope of effectiveness for those actions. Imagine a theoretical dungeon crawling system with basic combat actions and much more detailed exploration level actions, and some set of very thoroughly specified encounter triggering rules that swap the PC actions available. The primarily loop would using exploration actions to avoid/mitigate the downsides of being in combat. That could be made very "gamist" but follow the CaW paradigm easily enough.

 

[Pedantic]

Even in CaT fudging isn't recommended for getting "good" results, just to avoid the whole thing falling apart. The dice are supposed to provide surprises, after all.

It kind of feels like fudging is some whole other thing. It might be worth exploring what kind of play is best facilitate by a strong fudging culture. It supposes you want randomness only sometimes, and you want it to be secret, and mitigated by the GM in favor of some specific outcome. It feels like that's largely been put outside the camp of anyone's disclaimed "pure" desired game experience, but it's very popular. Seems like it must be serving some set of needs at large.

 

[BenjaminPey]

i think the reasoning is that in CaT the dice are often treated as more secondary to telling a good story, whereas in Sport and War the dice are given more weight and respect, when fudging is done in those two (if at all seeing as War is more inclined to let the dice lie where they fall: if you lose then you should've made better decisions) to 'avoid negative outcomes' whereas in Theatre i believe it would be used far more often than in the other two would ever to 'achieve desirable outcomes' towards compelling story beats.

Ok, I see the reasoning, now. Thanks!

I don't agree, though! Or rather: maybe some players who prefer CaT will fudge the dice more, because why not, maybe they think they have to pretend the dice matter even though in their game they don't matter a lot and they'd rather go with whatever they feel like is the best outcome, but all that is not at all a given.

I even see an offsetting factor: players who prefer CaT will frequently talk between themselves, gotchas and save-or-dies are few and far between if they even exist, and rolling in the open is rather the norm. All that add up to a lesser need of fudging dice, when that's even a possibility. You simply talk it through and find good solutions for everyone involved. Fudging is an asymetric tool, and CaT tend to be pretty symetric, I'd say.

Again, for me, with CaT you tend to embrass the hasardous outcomes, you like to improvise around them, you like to be surprised. You're playing to find out. That's why you're using dice! That's why you play these kind of games.

 

[Steady Vane]

Isnt that mechanic a general mechanic that works outside of combat too? But even if not, it is a different mechanic. I precised my point, that combat vs sport is mainly about balance, about symmetry. In combat as sport combat is symmetric, balanced and all your options are present on your character sheet ("pressing the buttons"), combat vs war is asymmetric and imbalanced and often players use ideas and tactics that are not present on the character sheet (like the famous example of flooding a dungeon or smoking it out).

Player improvisation can happen no matter which paradigm the game is under. It's about level of scale and impact.

You mention the classic examples of flooding the dungeon, but I can counterpoint with a classic example of player improvisation in combat as sport: swinging on a chandelier across the room.

The difference is in scale. Combat as sport has small-scale combat options on the character sheet. War has macro-scale options on both the character sheet and in table-wide rules. Compare old Vancian-style casters who could delete an encounter with a Sleep spell, but the gameplay was about choosing when to do so. To something like 4e sorcerers who had buttons to press, and got the pleasure of dithering over encounter and at-wills every single fight.

War wizard decision is at the macro scale. Sport wizard decision is at the round during the encounter scale. Both can improvise, but usually tend to improvise at the scale they are expected to operate at.

Theater instead flips the focus and improvisation to the PC's story, and improvisation is therefore generally found there instead. Smoking out the dungeon would be considered a dick move for table vibes. Focusing too much on combat min-maxxing loops instead of flavor and shared spotlight likewise.