Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Taeldrin Laesrash 04-02-05, 04:55 PM	I've designed an adventure for my friends and will DM it next week. The adventure is unique in which it includes all sneaking, spying and puzzles. There is no combat except for one encounter at the end. Question is, what do you people think about these kinds of adventures, and what it can do?
Lord Ian Stark 04-02-05, 04:58 PM	As long as your group has some RP background and you can keep thinks interesting enough, it is very doable. However, if you have players that have there D20 in hand and ready to pounce on anything that moves, it may get boring for them. I think your past games with the group would tell you more than we could.
Mirikon 04-02-05, 04:59 PM	Sounds like fun. But just remember to have a backup plan for the odd chance that the players don't intend to sneak, or do badly at it. And if they can't figure out the puzzles, be sure to have a plan for what happens.
Dash Branaghan 04-02-05, 05:09 PM	My campaign has been going for over three years now, and only recently have they entered combat. A great deal of the campaign prior to this has been RP of some sort...much like you, they've had to figure things out, get away, and in many cases, they actually had to avoid combat as they would get their butts royally whupped if they didn't. For over two and half years they played this...and kept asking to play it. So as long as you keep them entertained, they should be okay. Dash
Rumple_Cragstan 04-03-05, 03:32 AM	In my experiences, these adventures work the best. The players have more fun because they realize that it wasn't thier d20 that helped them win, it was thier ideas and thier character's teamwork. The first adventure of my current campaign was a great undertaking because the PCs had to start the adventure with almost no information about what it was they where doing. They had been hired to find out who had kidnapped the merchant's daughter and return her safely. All they had was her ransacked bedroom to start from. And by the end of the night, everything was solved... of course there was combat at the end when they snuck into the gang's hideout, but combat in an adventure like that is inevitable. Hope your group likes it at much as my group liked mine.
Lina_Inverse 04-03-05, 03:39 AM	they always end with the fighters getting ****** because they cant do anything. and they always end in a lesson in railroading because you need X skillchecks at X dc.so if you dont have X classes or X spells you instantly fail.
Razoreface 04-03-05, 04:39 AM	I don't recall anything in the books about fighters being incapable of independent thought, something that is typically one of the more important aspects of sessions that involve no combat at all.
Gedrin 04-03-05, 07:08 AM	I read once that one reason fights are so often used in TV is that they are an easy way to generate tension and express conflict. Fights are exciting. If you're going to do a "no fighting adventure" remember that the tension/excitement of the game needs to be generated through another method. Fights are an easy way to gnerate tension, and it my require more effort to do so without combat. That said, I frequently run adventures where combat is only a sideline to the main action of the story. Example: In last week's adventure the PC's were looking for new crewmen for the ship they own, and they decided (for many valid reasons) the best place to do this was a place where they weren't known well. Most of the RP centered around dealing wtih the new crew, discovering thigns about the new place and a variety of ongoing tensions among the PC's and crew. In the past I've done adventures centered around a race with tensions built in from various dangerous tasks durring the cross country race (cliff climbing, fording rough water). It's important to remember that most D&D games are adventure games. Some sort of adventure needs to be present. Can that adventure involve killing no one at all? Surely. Even the Splinter Cell games have levels where you're not allowed to kill people because you need to be totally unseen. Could there be dramatic tension while the PC's navigate the intrigue in a room of guildsmen and politicos? Certailnly. Give the PC's something to gain. Give the PC's something to loose. Give the PC's a chance of success, and a chance of failure. Provided they want to gain the gainable and don't want to loose the looseable, they'll have a reason to participate. If the means to success are enjoyable for them, you'll have a good game session.
The Shaman 04-03-05, 01:20 PM	*snip!*I agree with Gedrin - adventure is about tension and conflict, but there are many forms of conflict that don't involve combat. I read once about writing a plot of a movie or book - basically you start with a conflict, then you build to a first crisis, then a second crisis, and conclude with the resolution. In a non-combat adventure, the conflict could be a disagreement between two factions, the first crisis could be the theft of a something important to one of the factions, the second crisis could be the disappearance of someone important to the other faction, and the resolution could be locating the missing item and kidnapped person and restoring them to their respective factions and possibly brokering an agreement between them. Using this plotline as an example, the adventure begins with the adventurers finding themselves caught between members of the rival factions - perhaps one or more of the player characters has a connection to either or (better yet) both of the factions. The conflict is established. Later a holy relic belonging to one of the factions is stolen - the other faction is blamed of course, but there are indications that something else was involved, something that the players can divine through spells or simple legwork (Gather Information, Search, &c.). Then an assistant leader from the other faction disappears, and again fingers are pointed at their rivals - perhaps the players must cross a hostile wilderness (forest, mountain pass) requiring multiple skill checks (Climb, Swim, Use Rope, Ride, &c.) and/or creative spell-use to search for the missing leader. Finally it's discovered that some sort of outsider (demon, devil, &c.) and its minions are pushing the conflict in order to create strife between the factions - the resolution involves battling a minion to free the leader and recover the relic (combat) then working then diffusing the tension between the factions (if possible). Another classic example? A movie Western staple: ranchers v. sheepherders, with the adventurers trying to avoid a range war. I ran a couple of adventures similar to this one where both of the factions were good-aligned - in one case the factions were lawful good and chaotic good respectively, in another the factions were lawful good and a mix of neutral good and neutral. It's one way to represent serious conflicts between groups that are often not protrayed as inimical to one another. Good luck with your adventure!
FriendoftheDork 04-03-05, 01:59 PM	they always end with the fighters getting ****** because they cant do anything. and they always end in a lesson in railroading because you need X skillchecks at X dc.so if you dont have X classes or X spells you instantly fail. You obviously haven't played any good adventures of this kind. A good DM will let you be able to finish the adventure without fancy skills and spells. These adventures are bets suited at lower level though, because at higher levels spells can easily solve them.
DmMagnus 04-03-05, 02:24 PM	I love sneakin around! always afraid to make noice, puzzles are fun to! :D
Lord Ian Stark 04-03-05, 02:31 PM	I love sneakin around! always afraid to make noice, puzzles are fun to! :D Remember a fart is an expulsion of intestinal gas. (Webster's Dictionary) So if the bad guy makes a Listen check or has the scent ability, your in trouble after that burrito snack last rest. That reminds me? Why isn't there a smell or taste skill? There's a listen and spot? (Feel is obvious you just feel something touching you if it is) Damn Off-Topic Tangent Grenades!!!!
trapspringer 04-03-05, 02:38 PM	Combat free should not mean encounter free. I tend to become disineterested quickly when I am being rail-roaded through a series of social encounters in which my actions have no consequences. Remember to let your players PLAY! if they decide to use their abilities, let them use their abilities. Don't arbitrarily declare that X fails because X is something related to combat, ya know. I love a good stealth game, and I think social stuff is crucial to the game's balance ('charisma is the most useless stat' is an opinion directly resulting from a lack of social encounters), but you have to let your PCs use their skills and abilities.
Velderan 04-03-05, 02:47 PM	When you run adventures based around this kind of thing, how do you award experience? I don't remember seeing any good alternate xp systems in either the DMG or unearthed arcana, and I just don't feel that ad hoc is really adequate to award people for brilliant ideas or fanciful roleplaying. Has anyone seen 3rd party supplements, core rules, or even homebrew that they've found to be balanced this way?
Thanatos02 04-03-05, 03:02 PM	My players don't always appreciate a combat scene, and they hate random encounters. So, because of this, I really only run a combat scene every other game or so. When I do, I make it chancy - combat is dangerous. My players frequently try to get out of possible combat situations. All of my PCs can handle themselves in diplomatic situations, because they don't rely on a "face-man", and this has proven useful to them in the past. But, that's the way my group runs - of course, they're still leathal in combat. The trick to a combat-light or combat-free game is to still put challanges to your PCs. First of all, your characters have skills, so make them use them. Pay attention to what they took, and to their goals. My players roll Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, or Intimidate quite a lot. Don't neglect Fighter-types, or someone who didn't load their character with skills, though. While they won't be as effective in all situations, riding contests, sparring matches, and the like are all interesting things to pull. Bards and Rogues really pull their weight here, Fighters and Barbarians can get cercumstance modifiers when dealing with gaurds or the like because they trust them more, Clerics - likewise in friendly religious institutions. Magic users can be put to work with Divinations and the like to make social situations or searches go smoothly. Non-combat situations need to be planned as carefully as combat situations. Have information prepaired ahead of time on what spells will reveal, what searches will turn up, and what Diplomacy or similar rolls effects will be. Make sure you have a clear idea of who's who and what's important and their goals. Ok, hope that helps. :) Edit: A thought occured to me. The biggest trick may be to have interesting NPCs with well thought out agendas. Make them interact with the PC's while being very fair to the players.
DmMagnus 04-03-05, 03:27 PM	Remember a fart is an expulsion of intestinal gas. (Webster's Dictionary) So if the bad guy makes a Listen check or has the scent ability, your in trouble after that burrito snack last rest. That reminds me? Why isn't there a smell or taste skill? There's a listen and spot? (Feel is obvious you just feel something touching you if it is) Damn Off-Topic Tangent Grenades!!!! If you want to make a smell roll, you roll the spot skill i think. I`m not sure but i think it stands in the rulebooks... anyway, thats how I do it :)
Nidair 04-03-05, 04:44 PM	Tracking rangers who chase the foul stench to its source... ...the sewers.
Vanamir 04-03-05, 05:04 PM	they always end with the fighters getting ****** because they cant do anything. and they always end in a lesson in railroading because you need X skillchecks at X dc.so if you dont have X classes or X spells you instantly fail. Whenever i read your posts i cannot help but ask myself whether you actually know what the difference between a roleplaying game and a tabletop wargame is. :rolleyes: Adventures without combat can work really well if the players are not focused on killing everything in sight. It just requires that the they rely on their wits and common sense instead on their stats. I have played fighter types in low-combat adventures and i never felt that i could do nothing. Although such adventures somewhat favour rogues and bards even characters with few skills can participate in puzzle solving and can be a great asset when properly roleplayed. I myself have once GMed an adventure which had only a single fight at the end and to this day my players tell me that this has been one of the best adventures they ever played.
Razoreface 04-03-05, 05:44 PM	When you run adventures based around this kind of thing, how do you award experience? I don't remember seeing any good alternate xp systems in either the DMG By what trapspringer said; combat free does not mean encounter free. And every encounter has a challenge rating. That is in the DMG. And every encounter, with anything that you overcome, generates experience. At level one you can defeat traps that would kill level ten players, or work your way through enemies that could kill you in one hit. Just because you didn't try killing them doesn't mean you didn't defeat it. It's probably the most common and obvious misconception about D&D.
Velderan 04-03-05, 07:32 PM	By what trapspringer said; combat free does not mean encounter free. And every encounter has a challenge rating. That is in the DMG. And every encounter, with anything that you overcome, generates experience. At level one you can defeat traps that would kill level ten players, or work your way through enemies that could kill you in one hit. Just because you didn't try killing them doesn't mean you didn't defeat it. It's probably the most common and obvious misconception about D&D. Gee.....I know. I'm quite aware that sneaking past orc guards or tricking them cleverly will yield the same experience as killing them, that's one "common and obvious" misconception that I don't hold. I was talking about some kind of experience reward for roleplaying well, clever ideas that DON'T involve monsters or traps, etc. Another commonly held misconception about D&D is that you should only get xp if it happens in a dungeon. Anyway, I usually houserule this, but I wondered if anyone knows of good alternate xp systems that are written out (I've never really seen RP experience handed out in supplements before).
Teshub 04-03-05, 08:21 PM	Gee.....I know. I'm quite aware that sneaking past orc guards or tricking them cleverly will yield the same experience as killing them, that's one "common and obvious" misconception that I don't hold. I was talking about some kind of experience reward for roleplaying well, clever ideas that DON'T involve monsters or traps, etc. Another commonly held misconception about D&D is that you should only get xp if it happens in a dungeon. Anyway, I usually houserule this, but I wondered if anyone knows of good alternate xp systems that are written out (I've never really seen RP experience handed out in supplements before). Combat in my campaign is a rarity for the most part, generally occurring only at a story arc's climax or when there is no other solution for the parties involved. As a result I do not use the conventional xp system. Instead I determine what class a character is advancing in according to their RP actions , I then figure out how many bonuses they get upon attaining level. It's usually between 5 and 8. I then reward them with one level benefit every time they complete an important objective or if they accomplish some incredible feat that turns the story in a totally new and unforseen direction (usually about once every 2 or 3 sessions depending on the quality of the player). As a result their levels are written as 2.2 or 2.4 (for example). As a rule their hit dice is the last thing they are awarded in the progression.
Razoreface 04-03-05, 11:07 PM	If you're roleplaying, you're encountering NPCs. Or have a really strange group. Unless all the NPCs are incredibly friendly and hurry you on your way with all they can muster, you're overcoming some sort of obstacle they represent. They're not violent, and very rarely potentially violent. That's what the DMG's x1/4, x1/2, and x1 modifiers for encounters are for.
Velderan 04-03-05, 11:49 PM	If you're roleplaying, you're encountering NPCs. Or have a really strange group. Unless all the NPCs are incredibly friendly and hurry you on your way with all they can muster, you're overcoming some sort of obstacle they represent. They're not violent, and very rarely potentially violent. That's what the DMG's x1/4, x1/2, and x1 modifiers for encounters are for. Right, and very obviously, I was talking about situations in which those rules wouldn't apply, or I wouldn't have bothered to ask about it.
Thanatos02 04-04-05, 12:55 AM	I've found that basing non-combat exp. off hit-die is a little wonky, and poses a lot of problems. For example, a medium level Expert with a lot of ranks in Diplomacy, Skill Focus: Diplomacy, a decent to high Chr. and skill synergy is gonna be harder to out-diplomat then a tough Barbarian Ogre. With that in mind, I more or less base exp based off total skill ranks in a contest. Usually, but not always something like 100 exp. per skill rank. 100 * (total ranks) Then I check the difference in skill - a lower ranked PC or PC group is gonna get more exp. for taking out a tougher challange, so [100*(total ranks)]- (10* PC Ranks)] In a group, we calculate based on the highest PC used, plus the skill mods given from other PCs helping. My characters arn't high level yet, so I don't know if I'm gonna hace to change that 100 number. I think it's gonna end up being 10*Level to provide decent exp.
Didge 04-04-05, 01:25 AM	No combat, one combat, a few combat sequences, or nothing but combat galore. Each of these styles appeal to different style of players. The trick is to figure out which type you have. My favorite campaign was a homebrewed world in which honestly combat took place I'd say on average every other game session or so. We played every week and it was good. By the time we hit mid to high levels we were literally doing paperwork/bookkeeping stuff every third session or so. The game I currently run is once a month. Seeing as it is once a month and sometimes combat is needed I try to make sure there's one battle each session (as I've got two combat junkies in the group I run currently). Now I have several generic statblocks of bad guys that I can drop in at a drop of a hat, most of which are a level or so lower than the group's current CR. This gives them something to smack around and makes them feel good about themselves. Unless they're after a specific target or BBEG. In which case if s/he is a loner (as in the PC's will only be battling one of) I make sure the CR is between +2 or +4 due to the fact that they will be alone and that it's the main fight.
dulldoll 04-04-05, 03:03 AM	When you run adventures based around this kind of thing, how do you award experience? I don't remember seeing any good alternate xp systems in either the DMG or unearthed arcana, and I just don't feel that ad hoc is really adequate to award people for brilliant ideas or fanciful roleplaying. Has anyone seen 3rd party supplements, core rules, or even homebrew that they've found to be balanced this way? For puzzle encounters, you can assign CR as if they were traps. You assign the CR depending on your group's level and the difficulty of puzzles. For social encounters and stealth encounters, award the group as if they defeated "the enemy" if they succeeded in dealing with problems, getting important information, persuading the other party, or sneaking around them. For survival encounters and rescue encounters, again you may assign certain CR for accomplishing "goals" such as surviving harsh environments, preventing spread of disease, or rescuing lots of people from disaster. Planning an adventure by units of different kinds of encounters (including combat encounters) could be good for organizing the structure and assigning exp. Adventures in Dungeon magazine have plenty of good examples about assigning CRs for noncombat encounters. I recommend to take a look at a few issues.
Lord_Gema 04-04-05, 06:03 AM	I would agree fighters get the shaft but not as bad as barbarians.If your group is thieves,bards and other magic users geared towards RPing all the time thats fine they have the skills and abilities for it. Just seems a little boring to me someone wrote he had his group wait over 3 years to get some combat. My group would boot the DM after 2 or 3 weeks with no hack and slash.Sure too much combat get boring but too much RPing ends up 1 maybe 2 players talking to the DM and the others staring at their dice just rolling and rolling and rolling. :waits:
VerinBlod 04-04-05, 06:50 AM	Well I recently run an adventure without combat. I must say it was wonderfull to both run and for my players to play. If the group wanted they could have gotten some decent fights, they only had to tick off the right guys. Which wasn't that difficult by the way :D But by sheer good roleplay and diplomatic actions they managed in the end to put the rightful ruler on the throne. If that was a smart move, time will tell :schemes: So all in all if your group likes this kind of play it can get very interesting and fun. As to exp I just figured out how long it took for them to unravel the plot and how much they normally would earn in such a time span with a normal dungeon crawl. Some modifiers added to this, like good, inventive roleplay could up or lower the amount of xp.
Lina_Inverse 04-04-05, 07:49 AM	Whenever i read your posts i cannot help but ask myself whether you actually know what the difference between a roleplaying game and a tabletop wargame is. :rolleyes: a roleplaying game has roleplaying and a continuity. a wargame is a tactical simulation whereupon groups of units attempt to overcome the other. D&D is both :P Adventures without combat can work really well if the players are not focused on killing everything in sight. It just requires that the they rely on their wits and common sense instead on their stats. I have played fighter types in low-combat adventures and i never felt that i could do nothing. Although such adventures somewhat favour rogues and bards even characters with few skills can participate in puzzle solving and can be a great asset when properly roleplayed. wits/comm sense=wis stat.are you cheating? a non-combat session will still rely heavily on charecter stats,more heavily than player skill really.defeating the puzzle is not something the charecters can do without metagameing. the 10int/8cha fighter will feel woefully useless without combat.
Vanamir 04-04-05, 11:53 AM	a roleplaying game has roleplaying and a continuity. a wargame is a tactical simulation whereupon groups of units attempt to overcome the other. D&D is both :P Are you sure you are not confusing D&D with D&D miniatures? :P The amount of wargaming in D&D in purely decided by the GM and the players and not by the rules themselves. Sure you can play it as a wargame but you don't have to. It is perfectly viable to play it as a pure roleplaying game with only few combats if you want to. Look it up in the DMG under styles of play. Just because most supplements focus on the crunch and the kick-in-the-door style of play does not mean you have to do so too. wits/comm sense=wis stat.are you cheating? a non-combat session will still rely heavily on charecter stats,more heavily than player skill really.defeating the puzzle is not something the charecters can do without metagameing. Just for your information: an ability score of 10 is the normal score for an average human being. If you have a 10 int you are neither retarded nor incapable of logical thinking. And an 8 cha just means that you aren't much of a social guy it does not mean that you have a psychosocial disability. Having a stat of 8 to 10 does not mean that you are mentally impaired! If you can figure out the solution to a problem it is quite plausible your character would be too. The problem is that many players are so accostumed to high stats that they think everything below 16 in your secondary and below 26 in your primary abilities is just not worth playing. And concerning the metagaming concerns of yours: With your logic you might prohibit anyone to play a character with an intelligence or wisdom score over 15 for who of your players can really claim to be among the most intelligent / wise 5% of the entire population and thus be able to properly play his character? You need need to readjust your perspective on the ability scores. the 10int/8cha fighter will feel woefully useless without combat. Of course a low-combat style of play favours rogues, bards and rangers with their large number of skill points but that's no different than combat heavy adventures favouring fighter-types and sorcerers. IMHO the key to a good campaign is to have a good mix of combat, puzzle solving and story-telling/-creating. There is nothing wrong if one adventure leans more to the one extreme and another adventure to the other. Furthermore a lot of things in a low-combat don't even require skill rolls at all. Asking someone a question does not mean that you have to roll gather information or diplomacy. And distracting the guards so that the thief can sneak into a building won't require you to fail a move silently or hide check. If the thief cannot pick a lock the fighter is still free to hack it down the door with his axe. Wonder how to cross the deep chasm in front of you? Just hack down a tree so that it falls over it and forms some kind of bridge. No profession(woodcutter) checks required. If you think that a fighter is woefully useless without combat it simply shows that you have a quite unimaginative style of play.
LCD2YOU 04-04-05, 12:00 PM	Ever read or seen any Shakespear? Top of my lists would be the romantic comedies: 1: Much a do about nothing 2: Midsummer's night dream 3: Taming of the Shrew All of these have plenty of wondering what to do with the idea of combat a definite no-no. For the more fantasy driven, an adaptation of #2 is in order. The fey will give the characters more than they can deal with in a non-violent setting. If anyone wants to start a fight with weapons, the spell "Teleport Object", in this case their weapon and replace with a celery stick will be in order.
Gilean 04-04-05, 12:44 PM	Well, as weird as it may sound, Lina does have a point. D&D is focused on caombat, for the determinator of balance questions is combat. Every PC-class is supposed to be equally effective in combat. It would probably be worth the effort to check other RPGs if running low-combat game.
The Shaman 04-04-05, 01:07 PM	wits/comm sense=wis stat.are you cheating? :rolleyes: a non-combat session will still rely heavily on charecter stats,more heavily than player skill really.Non-combat encounters depend on skill checks which may or may not be strongly influenced by character ability scores. A character can have ranks in a skill with no ability modifier, such as a character with ranks in Climb and a 10 STR. As levels increase the importance of ability score modifier becomes less significant as skill ranks stack up.defeating the puzzle is not something the charecters can do without metagameing.If the only non-combat challenges offered are similar to those of Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain, then there is some truth to this. However, if you re-read the example that I presented above, you won't see any references to 'puzzles' in designing a series of encounters that offer non-combat roleplay challenges. the 10int/8cha fighter will feel woefully useless without combat.Being average doesn't make a character "useless." If a player chooses to build a character around combat, that's fine - that player has decided to de-emphasize skills for non-combat encounters. Nowhere does it say that that character cannot or should not participate in social encounters or skill-based encounters, however - a Fighter faced with climbing a castle wall or swimming a river is still likely to be better off by virtue of a good STR score than a Sorcerer or Bard, and there's always the Great Equalizer, the d20, which means that luck or fate can always intervene to give a Fighter a silver-tongue when attempting to Bluff the king's guards. I get a bit exasperated with players who complain that roleplaying adventures or social encounters gimp Fighters. Fighters have a social skill: it's called Intimidate. Take advantage of that scarred visage and those bulging biceps and scare the heck out of people once in awhile!
Aliquid 04-04-05, 01:11 PM	Every PC-class is supposed to be equally effective in combat. What about the Bard..... I could be wrong here, but I would imagine that a bard would be a total waste of time in a hack & slash game (with no role play scenarios)
Andrew_980 04-04-05, 02:29 PM	a non-combat adventure can be fun, i played in one over the weekend and it was great. If the Dm is good and the players know how to play their roles to the hilt it can be far more fun than a hackfest. a whole campiegn with almost no combat could get very boring but one adventure for a little change is cool.
Anthus_Longblade 04-04-05, 04:35 PM	This type of adventure sounds like a great idea, the key is going to be getting all the characters involved. Perhaps the fighter is the only one strong enough to climb a wall and lower a rope down, so that the rogue can climb up and balance across the wooden beam to get to the other side of the chasm, and pull the switch to lower the bridge. On the other side is a room with writing on the walls in draconic, which only the wizard knows, that details the casting of a divine spell that the cleric can use to open the secret door leading to the rest of the dungeon. This type of thing will help build teamwork and party unity, with everyone getting a chance to shine, and knowing that none of them could have done it without the skills of the others. Get copies of your players' sheets, if you don't already have them, and look over each characters strengths and weaknesses, especially ones unique to a single character. Emphasize both in the puzzles, as what one character can't do another may very well be able to.
Thanatos02 04-04-05, 04:40 PM	What about the Bard..... I could be wrong here, but I would imagine that a bard would be a total waste of time in a hack & slash game (with no role play scenarios) This is highly debated, but many people would argue that Bards still are quite effective when the glove is thrown down. They can use magical items, cast healing and buffing spells, and inspire confidence while fighting. They have access to decent weapons - ranged and melee - and a medium attack bonus (like the Cleric and Rogue). A Bard has a lot to offer in combat, even if he doesn't turn out dice and dice of damage by himself. A team-player, if you will. (He can, however, when properly outfitted, stand up quite well by himself.)