Combat as...

From a post at ENWorld, of all places. ENWorld is one of the worst places on the internet; worse even than reddit, but there are only so many places to talk about RPGs, and all of them are dysfunctional woke cesspits, or have too little traffic or too tight of a focus to be useful. Sometimes, you have to just deal with it. This post, however, I thought was interesting. I've edited it mostly just for formatting, but occasional word choice to be more explicit in what I think is accurate:

I've seen the "Combat as War vs. Combat as Sport" framework come up a lot in RPG discussions, and I think it's a very useful distinction. It captures two very different priorities:

* Combat as War: asymmetric, player-driven, where preparation, avoidance, and clever tactics matter more than balance.

* Combat as Sport: balanced encounters, challenge ratings, tactical puzzle-solving, and fair challenges designed for engagement within a defined ruleset.

This comparison was frequently used by the OSR community to demonstrate a difference between OSR and 5e D&D approaches to combat. However, I think there's a third mode that often gets left out of the conversation, even though many tables quietly prioritize it: Combat as Theater.

By "Combat as Theater," I mean treating combat primarily as a performance or scene rather than an asymmetric test of survival or a challenging tactical puzzle. The focus shifts toward narrative/character expression, pacing, and dramatic impact. 

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.

Where War asks, "How do we win (and survive) this through preparation, tactics, and asymmetry?" and Sport asks, "How do we win this fair encounter efficiently using our abilities?", 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. It helps clarify disagreements that aren’t really about rules, but about what combat is for at the table. What is sometimes called "Combat as Sport" may not actually be "Sport." It may actually be "Theater."

I think that this was a pretty insightful and compelling new nugget to the vocabulary of RPG philosophy. Posting it in the forums at ENWorld is searchable, sure, but it's pretty ephemeral. I wanted to give it a place where I can find it again as needed. I do also think that he's correct; tables don't really cluster too often at the actual endpoints, although to some degree, rulesets can and sometimes do. It's also yet another brick in the wall of "philosophical points that the OSR people either don't understand, refuse to understand, or lump together because they don't actually care about the differences." While a lot of interesting RPG philosophy comes from OSR thinkers, it's true that they are kind of blinkered in terms of what they allow themselves to see about playstyles that vary too much from either OSR or at most Classic.