Would any of the players who circulate these forums be up for playing in a D&D game with absolutely no combat?
It really depends on what you mean here. If you mean no planned combat, i.e. highly diplomatic games that focus on character interaction and skill checks, then yes. If, however, you mean that whenever I draw a sword, roll for initiative or otherwise initiate combat, you said, "Nope... sorry... no combat." Then, no. I wouldn't be interested in that.
Even I hated it. I only ran it that one time and never again. Thankfully, I no longer remember how it plays.
The actual play was fun. People were into the roleplay, but really, combat is integral to D&D. Your character is a warrior wielding a big weapon at + I Hit dealing + You're dead damage, and you don't get to use it? Roelplaying is fine and all, but I want to kill monsters and take their stuff.
Not all drama in a story comes from combat.
Could be a detective style mystery, or exploring a ruin, Indiana Jones style.
Note, he didn't say "no danger, no traps", etc.
I'd be up for this if it didn't conflict with my current gaming schedule. Which is sun, and mon closed.
What night(s), what version?
Dungeons and Dragons 3.X relegates all of social interaction to about three skills with set rank limits. There would be very little point in even having a D&D character sheet, since 95% of it would be wasted space (the remaining five percent are your modifiers in Bluff, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy).
I mean no violence initiated by the players or the NPCs/Monsters. However, rocks can still fall.
To Shaggy_Shaggs:
I'm afraid so.
To Cuindless:
Thanks for the input, I hope my definition above clarifies things.
navar100:
I didn't imagine that a DM running a no combat game would have players who, knowing this, chose to equip themselves with weapons. Thanks for enlightening me to that possibility.
green_yawgmoth:
Do you mean to say that the character generation system, skill system, d20 action resolution mechanic, various settings, etc. produced for D&D do not distinguish it from drama club? Only the fact that the game has combat mechanics at the core of its design differentiates it from drama club?
nightwyrm:
Thank you for the input. A question to you: does the fact that another system would be better suited for the type of game I described invalidate the use of D&D to run said game, in your opinion?
Etarnon:
This response I had not expected, I was merely posting this to get a feel for what people thought. That said, you've piqued my interest and I'll let you know if/when I'm able to get something together that I feel confident in.
LogicNinja:
Thanks for the response.
Lord_Varos:
I'm not insisting on anything, and I apologize if it came off that way. Until Etarnon posted I hadn't seriously considered running a game of this type as I assumed I would find no one interested.
As far as the use of skills goes, I think you're overlooking the following skills each of which could be useful in a game sans combat:
o Appraise
o Balance
o Climb
o Craft
o Decipher Script
o Disable Device
o Disguise
o Escape Artist
o Forgery
o Gather Information
o Handle Animal
o Heal
o Hide
o Intimidate
o Jump
o Knowledge
o Listen
o Move Silently
o Open Lock
o Perform
o Profession
o Ride
o Search
o Sleight Of Hand
o Speak Language
o Spellcraft
o Spot
o Survival
o Swim
o Tumble
o Use Magic Device
o Use Rope
Secondly, D&D is set up such that skills, spells, abilities etc. are all geared towards bypassing challenges. Granted, not all challenges have to involve combat and smart PCs will learn to avoid unnecessary battles, however, there is always the possibility of an NPC encounter degenerating into battle. A big part of the drama that comes from using skills like bluff, diplomacy etc. is that it allows you to bypass combat.
Why am I using diplomacy on the enemy? Coz I don't want to fight against a superior foe.
Why am I using hide and move silently? Coz I don't want to alert the guards and fight them.
Without the possibility of combat, there are little to no consequences behind the failure to use a skill.
Thirdly, have you consider how you're going to adjudicate PC vs NPC interactions without the use of combat rules. The PCs want to take the NPC's stuff, the NPC don't want to give it to them, diplomacy has failed, but the PCs aren't willing to just gonna walk away from this.....now what? In a normal game, the PCs would simply start beating the stuffings out of the NPC, but sans combat, the two sides just stare at each other until one side starves to death.
In conclusion, the D&D system has been set up either to resolve combat or to avoid combat. Cut out the possibility of combat, and you're basically playing improv. Sure, you can get a bunch of guys together and have fun improv-ing. But you can't really call that D&D anymore than you can call chatting in a blizzard chat room "playing WoW".
To answer your first question, I don't think I would need to prevent the players from initiating violence. I would explain when propositioning the game that it would be one without combat. If players agreed to play then they would agree to play without combat. If somebody slipped up and tried to attack something, I'd probably just say "oops, remember this is a no combat game?" and move on.
As to your second question, I agree that a big part of using skills in a traditional game would be to avoid combat. In the type of game that would be run without combat I think the drama would still be there.
Instead of using diplomacy to avoid a fight against a superior foe, it could be used to outmanuever a foe in a court setting, a political setting, a market setting, and so on and so forth. In each of those instances I can see the PCs having something to lose if diplomacy fails, it just wouldn't be their lives necessarily.
Similarly, hide and move silently could be used when breaking and entering an occupied house or maybe trailing someone through alleyways undetected. In both cases you wouldn't want to be caught, but being caught would not necessarily lead to combat. Perhaps if you failed the residents would run into the street and call for the guards to come arrest you. Perhaps if you failed the person you were tailing would slip around a corner and dimension door away. Both would be undesirable results from failing your roll, but neither would result in combat.
Regarding your third question, if the PCs want to take an NPC's stuff, he doesn't want to give it to them, diplomacy has failed, and the PCs aren't willing to walk away then the game would likely break down at that point. If I were DMing I would suggest they leave and consider the many non-combative options they have to relieve said NPC of his stuff. If all they can think of is making him bleed and they decide they absolutely must have his stuff then I would apologize, end the game, and likely offer to run a normal game for them.
That being said, I cannot concieve of a group of players would agree to play in a game without combat and then insist on a combative solution to a problem such as the one you described.
As to your conclusion, if I used all of the rules for D&D except the rules for combat, why would it be that I "can't really call that D&D anymore"? If I used D&D classes, races, equipment, skills, item creation and skill feats, item creation rules, non-combative spells, rules for movement, and treasure tables why would I not be able to call that D&D?
Lastly, I would like to thank you again for answering my initial question of whether or not you would be up for playing in a D&D game with absolutely no combat.
Obviously, I'd be open to something like this and I think it could be fun, it all depends on how it's done and of course the players have to want it to happen... anyone not with the program will probably detract from the experience of the others who do want to try to do such a campaign.
Not that I mind that in a traditional type game. I had a friend whose character brutally murdered a traveling trader "for me" because my haggling was taking too long. I got the item I wanted though, so it worked out pretty well all around... I think... I hope he didn't have a traveling family to support...My games are already rare combat, as it is because there is no raise dead, no resurrection. You go to combat, you get your PC killed, it's gone.
So there are lots of standoffs and maneuvering, and political posturing.
As to "PC's want to take NPCs stuff" Yeah, in the typical combat oriented H&S game.
Not all scenarios have to have a BBEG. And there are ways to defeat people without resorting to swordplay.
If it's a Man vs Self story or Man Vs Nature Story, there doesn't need to be a bad guy. It's psychological (usually done better with a game such as call of Cthulhu, or Chill) or non-combat skills vs. the world.
I always liked skill based games with any combat very deadly and no raise or ressurection anyway. Keeps it real. Like Traveller, for instance. Or Morrow Project, or (though a bit fluffy on damage) Twilight:2000
Characters in those games that get shot die (Twilight, you die a lot slower), so you sneak around and ambush and wait and watch the trail, and get fire superiority or call it off.
Just because the paradigmn community wide is "Wade-in" doesn't make it necessarily all that could be played.
I applaud this idea. Logs of such a game might be eye-opening to some people with an open mind, as to "Another way to do it."
Again, not all drama comes from combat, and death of a PC is not the only loss possible that's significant.
I think I could get you some guys from RedWizard's game, maybe.
...Or come up with a concept and propose it as say a three parter three shot mini game, and advertise it on gamers wanted, and run it via open.
green_yawgmoth:
Do you mean to say that the character generation system, skill system, d20 action resolution mechanic, various settings, etc. produced for D&D do not distinguish it from drama club? Only the fact that the game has combat mechanics at the core of its design differentiates it from drama club?
I'm saying (as lord varos put it) that removing the combat from D&D is like removing the engine from a car. Once you take out combat, the remaining die rolling and rules text in general boils down to bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, intimidate, and maybe gather info. Stats don't matter a huge lot except for encumbrance/lifting, which hardly ever come up anyway. You could possibly make the case for things like open lock/trapfinding, but if you're finding traps you're going where you don't belong which means you're going to run into an angry ________ which means combat.
In short, if you take out combat you're taking out 95% of the die rolls. If you're not rolling dice, you're just freeform acting, i.e. drama club. Nothing wrong with that, just not my thing, and not what springs to mind when most people think "game".
Edit: I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying RP can't happen in D&D or doesn't happen in my games. My games are typically split evenly between combat and non-combat situations. It's just that you don't need a system to RP.
Combat alone: you're playing a boardgame
Together: you're playing an RPG.
I'm saying (as lord varos put it) that removing the combat from D&D is like removing the engine from a car. Once you take out combat, the remaining die rolling and rules text in general boils down to bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, intimidate, and maybe gather info. Stats don't matter a huge lot except for encumbrance/lifting, which hardly ever come up anyway. You could possibly make the case for things like open lock/trapfinding, but if you're finding traps you're going where you don't belong which means you're going to run into an angry ________ which means combat.
In short, if you take out combat you're taking out 95% of the die rolls. If you're not rolling dice, you're just freeform acting, i.e. drama club. Nothing wrong with that, just not my thing, and not what springs to mind when most people think "game".
Edit: I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying RP can't happen in D&D or doesn't happen in my games. My games are typically split evenly between combat and non-combat situations. It's just that you don't need a system to RP.
My question to you is this: why are you dismissing all the other skills I listed as things that wouldn't come up in a game without combat? The list I'm referring to is in post number 11 of this thread.
Zombie_Babies:
There are a lot of places that combat can come up without it being expected to. If they break into a house they thought was unoccupied and wasn't, what homeowner wouldn't unload their crossbow at the intruder? Or what if they know it's occupied and roll poorly for their Move Silently check? They are discovered and, again, a fight breaks out. You could have the town guard rush in immediately, I guess, but that's cheap and how many of us have seen players fight the guards as well? Think about the more Diplomatic situations. There have been people beaten and shot inside of Congress. Several eastern countries have fights in Parliament on a fairly frequent basis. People become attached to their ideas and can easily become hostile when they are challenged. I don't think combat can be eliminated 100%. Toned down a lot, sure. But even with high mortality systems like Shadowrun (where being shot pretty much means death or incarceration) you still fight. The goal is to try not to and accomplish your tasks without combat. No goal is ever achieved every time, however.
I can see events unfolding as you described them in a normal game. In a game where the players and DM have decided to play without combat then I wouldn't expect the DM to place a crossbow in the hands of an NPC.
I think something we need to agree on for this discussion is that for a game without combat to work both the players and DM would have to agree to avoid combat. If both parties haven't agreed to work together and not resort to combat then yes, any given situation could dissolve into a fight. However, I am proposing that anyone who would attempt to run such a game without first securing the cooperation of their players would have only themselves to blame when a fight broke out in the first session.
Zombie_Babies:
I can see events unfolding as you described them in a normal game. In a game where the players and DM have decided to play without combat then I wouldn't expect the DM to place a crossbow in the hands of an NPC.
I think something we need to agree on for this discussion is that for a game without combat to work both the players and DM would have to agree to avoid combat. If both parties haven't agreed to work together and not resort to combat then yes, any given situation could dissolve into a fight. However, I am proposing that anyone who would attempt to run such a game without first securing the cooperation of their players would have only themselves to blame when a fight broke out in the first session.
The issue is that for any kind of realism to be there, IMO, these things need to be allowed to happen. Barring the removal of all weapons- including butter knives, sporks and fists- people will fight. That's just the way it is. And once you start having PCs poke around, intimidate opponents, etc, tempers will flare to the point that a fight will happen. Removing that removes more than a game mechanic. It removes any sense of realism (whatever that means in D&D). Extremely low combat games- meaning one combat every three or more sessions- are possible and quite fun. I've played in them and enjoyed myself immensely. I wish I could run one, but the tactician in me always wins out and I end up running complex battle scenarios instead. :D I'd suggest trying something more like this. Or, at the very least, allow combat to happen when it would naturally. Explain that combat is not the point, but that there will be times when fights would make sense. You would need to be perfectly clear and do some screening, of course, but I think this method is a lot more viable that no combat at all. If you do go ahead with it, I'd be interested to see how it turns out. If people feel situations were contrived because the obvious responses were hand waved away, etc. Hopefully, if you do, that won't be the case. In any event, I wish you luck with whatever way you decide to go.
nightwyrm:
To answer your first question, I don't think I would need to prevent the players from initiating violence. I would explain when propositioning the game that it would be one without combat. If players agreed to play then they would agree to play without combat. If somebody slipped up and tried to attack something, I'd probably just say "oops, remember this is a no combat game?" and move on.
A big draw for D&D and rpgs in general is the "go there, do that" effect I get. If I see a guard outside a barracks, I can attack him, sneak by him, try to bluff my way inside, try to bribe him, etc etc. I have options. Taking away combat is restricting an option that just wouldn't be much fun for me.
Maybe you can do away with the traditional "big monster attacks caravan" encounter and keep the cloak-and-dagger type stuff. You'd still need some combat rules, though; and I'm sorry, but even if I did agree to try this no-combat game, I can guarantee that someone, sometime or another, will want to stick a knife in someone's ribs. If you said "oops, remember this is a no combat game?" when I was about to initiate an attack, I'd say "oops, this game is boring... let's play Rock Band!"
I think we have a different sense of realism here to base the term on. I tend to base my idea of realism on my life experiences, which I consider fairly realistic. I've been alive and interacting with people for 22 years (short time to some people, I know) and I've never been involved in a fight. I've been in trouble, I've been in arguments, I've been in situations where I've had a lot on the line and one or two people were preventing me (as I saw it at the time) from succeeding. I've wanted to beat the tar out of more than a few people in my life, but I haven't.
I'm not suggesting that realism is necessarily a good means by which to measure a game. That said, if a lack of realism is a potential problem you see with a no combat game, do you also see it as a potential problem with real life? ;)
Pacifism only ever works because somebody bigger is willing to fight for the guy who won't.
Would any of the players who circulate these forums be up for playing in a D&D game with absolutely no combat?
I think that a better tack mught be rying an approach like the "Metal Gear" franchise (or the Akira Kurosawa movie The Hidden Fortress), where combat is possible (indeed every great once in a while necessary) but otherwise discouraged throught the circumstances.
In a fantasy setting this might mean something like being trapped in an enemy country and having to continually hide to escape an unrelentingly hostile populace who could quite likely kill through sheer numbers, as well as having to escape the Evil Empire of the Wahoonie's magical trackers trying to put you into the Pit of Lost Souls or some such...because you have to get a message to your king about an impending offensive by the Dragon Riders of Amon-Toth...
To Zombie_Babies:
I think we have a different sense of realism here to base the term on. I tend to base my idea of realism on my life experiences, which I consider fairly realistic. I've been alive and interacting with people for 22 years (short time to some people, I know) and I've never been involved in a fight. I've been in trouble, I've been in arguments, I've been in situations where I've had a lot on the line and one or two people were preventing me (as I saw it at the time) from succeeding. I've wanted to beat the tar out of more than a few people in my life, but I haven't.
I'm not suggesting that realism is necessarily a good means by which to measure a game. That said, if a lack of realism is a potential problem you see with a no combat game, do you also see it as a potential problem with real life? ;)
But most of us in real life aren't thieves trying to sneak into the royal treasury or cops chasing down a dangerous criminal or combat veterans facing incredible odds. Even in real life, there is a ton of violence going on, just open a newspaper. You see shootings and assasinations and riots. Most of us don't use violence because it's not an acceptable solution to our problems, but adventurers are those people who have either decided that violence is an acceptable solution or faces situations where violence is a viable solution.
If you want to play a low combat, high RP game, just let the players know that there would be strong undesirable consequences to their violence. The PCs will adjust accordingly. Just arbitrarily banning combat detracts from the suspension of disbelief. It's like how you can't attack the shopkeeper in computer RPGs. In pen and paper RPG, you probably won't attack a shopkeeper because it's pretty dumb, but the advantage of pen and paper is that you always have the option of doing incredibly dumb things like charging a red dragon at level 1 or taking on the twenty guards who've come to arrest you. The option of doing dumb things is one of the reasons most people play D&D instead of Sims or Second Life.
Yes, not all drama revolves around combat - but it does revolve around conflict. In a default fantasy environment such as D&D ASSUMES that is going to MEAN combat. Combat is part and parcel of the whole scheme. Exploring the possibility of play to the EXCLUSION of combat does suggest right away that you're using the wrong game system and are in the wrong GENRE.
But it IS interesting.
You've not been in a fight only because the threat of violence by a much greater entity is over your own head and that of everyone else available for you to fight with. Law fails utterly if there is no force to back it up. You can't even perform a simple arrest unless the detainee is willing to go, without some sort of combat.
Pacifism only ever works because somebody bigger is willing to fight for the guy who won't.
First, it bothers me to know that you've been spying on my life to such an extent that you can confidently claim to know why I haven't been involved in any fights.
Secondly, thanks for your responses. I can't be entirely certain, since you haven't overtly stated your preference, but I'm guessing that you among those who would not like to play in a no-combat D&D game correct?
Same for you Man in the Funny Hat?
I don't mind the occasional game where combat isn't the main focus, but a game with an artificial no combat at all restriction would seem too absurd to bother with, to me.
My question to you is this: why are you dismissing all the other skills I listed as things that wouldn't come up in a game without combat? The list I'm referring to is in post number 11 of this thread.
Because they either fall into the "will probably generate combat" category, or the "why would you RP this anyway?" category. Honestly, I think that you'd be much much happier just going out and buying all the LARP books you can find. It sounds a lot more like the kind of game you want to run.
To Zombie_Babies:
I think we have a different sense of realism here to base the term on. I tend to base my idea of realism on my life experiences, which I consider fairly realistic. I've been alive and interacting with people for 22 years (short time to some people, I know) and I've never been involved in a fight. I've been in trouble, I've been in arguments, I've been in situations where I've had a lot on the line and one or two people were preventing me (as I saw it at the time) from succeeding. I've wanted to beat the tar out of more than a few people in my life, but I haven't.
I'm not suggesting that realism is necessarily a good means by which to measure a game. That said, if a lack of realism is a potential problem you see with a no combat game, do you also see it as a potential problem with real life? ;)
Hell, I'm 30, been training martial arts for nearly 18 years, am quite versed in firearms use and other weapon types and have never been in a fight either. Does that mean that fights don't happen? Nope. The reality is that most people do not steal or fight or whatever, but a good many do. As others have said, look in the paper or watch the news. The norm is not fighting, but that's also only one norm. In certain gang filled areas the norm is fighting. In many parts of the Middle East the norm is fighting as well. These near frontier areas are far closer to what D&D simulates than any other modern setting. And combat happens there a lot. So, to me, combat is a reality and it lends itself to the "realism" of a game. It can happen. It doesn't have to, but it can. No fight has been stopped by the hand of god that I can recall. Ever. That's all I'm trying to say. Removing combat completely is far more damaging to the little realism D&D has than you seem to see. And it also will tend to tell player what they do. Which is the last thing a DM should do.
I really miss that gaming group and DM. Since that time, I've been playing with other groups that followed more the D&D normal combat and social rules. I find the combats fine but the social is stilted and unnatural sometimes. Of course, it would also help if people were more rewarded for rp that wasn't necessarily combat-centric.
There are people in the world who recognize physical force (including violence) as a means of problem-solving, just as legitimate as guile or diplomacy (force of personality and will), and invention (applied intellect), simply different. Some of us who recognize physical force as a means of problem-solving also honestly enjoy using it, and even enjoy pain for the side effects (there is nothing quite like the internally generated high from adrenaline and endorphins flooding into the bloodstream). People like that tend to get into fights frequently.
The reason beatings from such people tend to land on the pacifists isn't simply bullying (although there is that motive as well, for some people). One must also consider that equal or greater applied force is often necessary to stop such people from applying their own force to a situation. An individual who won't or can't fight back is likely to suffer significantly greater injury from the opening attack than an individual who is capable and willing to deflect it and strike back at the aggressor sufficiently to convince him that continuing isn't worth it (possible even for those of us that like pain -- tear flesh and I'll keep right on coming, convince me you can snap my neck and I'm gone, I've had some experience with crippling and I don't like it at all).
Anyway, people like this exist in the world, quite a few of them in fact. Many of them require force to stop, or at least a believable threat of force. Without law enforcement and military to provide that threat (and if necessary, apply that force), there is nothing available to stop enough of them to keep everyone from getting into fights, whether they want to or not, on a fairly regular basis.
That said, there's probably much better systems for roleplaying like Amber. I've never played it, but I've heard it tossed around as the system for this kind of thing.
Hell, I'm 30, been training martial arts for nearly 18 years, am quite versed in firearms use and other weapon types and have never been in a fight either. Does that mean that fights don't happen? Nope. The reality is that most people do not steal or fight or whatever, but a good many do. As others have said, look in the paper or watch the news. The norm is not fighting, but that's also only one norm. In certain gang filled areas the norm is fighting. In many parts of the Middle East the norm is fighting as well. These near frontier areas are far closer to what D&D simulates than any other modern setting. And combat happens there a lot. So, to me, combat is a reality and it lends itself to the "realism" of a game. It can happen. It doesn't have to, but it can. No fight has been stopped by the hand of god that I can recall. Ever. That's all I'm trying to say. Removing combat completely is far more damaging to the little realism D&D has than you seem to see. And it also will tend to tell player what they do. Which is the last thing a DM should do.
Good points all around.
Shaggy_Shaggs:
Good points as well.
iserith:
I'll count you among those who would play. Personally, I think the 3.x skill system, races, classes, magic, etc. is all I'd need to run a game of this type. But as many are pointing out, it is probably not the ideal system.
Nor "Raid on the castle"
I agree, fighter types in a game pre-ruled to be no combat would have no reason to exist in the scenario, unless it was a thought experiment about "What kind of reactions will someone used to fighting all the time have, when they cannot resort to instant violence?"
I can see sneaking around, traps, mapping skills.
Seriously, my first though upon hearing this was the following scenario:
Setting:
SCI FI
Situation:
The SS Star Wanderer, a small scout ship of the Imperium, carrying a crew of 6 has crashed onto the surface of Plant HR3456-A. The terrain in the local area is mostly desert, ringed by mountains, with grassy plains 200 miles to the east, and beyond that, known fresh water, and some lakebeds.
Native life consists of plants, no animals, other than microbiological.
The seismic factor of the planet is extreme, brought on by 3 moons in near orbit.
Earthquakes are common, as are volcanoes, and geysers and hotsprings, along with strange lightning, dust-storms, and extreme temperatures of day and night, due to slow rotational period, and thin atmosphere.
Pickup will arrive in 2 months. Survive till then.
The only possible combat here would be amongst the party. (and we're ruling that out, pretty sure.)
Something like that adapted to fantasy.
My first thought about a D&D game of without combat was an exploration of ancient ruins. Sort of Indiana Jonesish without the Nazi's. As in, nobody else is aware of the ruins existence so nobody is trying to beat the party into a pulp to secure their own finder's fee. The players could explore the ruins, pass some traps, net some treasure, interact with the people necessary to sell it or donate it or whatever they would do with it.
It'd be like Showtime's The Tudors, but with better acting and dialogue.
Etarnon could probably run this in his sleep since he already runs Birthright.
Interesting scenario Etarnon. Question for you, are you positing a setting without NPCs because you too feel that any given can degenerate into combat and to rule such a possibility out would break strain the suspension of disbelief necessary to play?
Well, to be honest, many scenarios would work. I thought of it as: No combat = no things to fight = What world has no creatures to combat.
That was my thought process.
Indy-Jones style is just as good as is, well anything that either has few people or you are expressly not gonna get anywhere by fighting.
courtly intrigue
or a modern day DeGrassi kind of high school thing
or World Conquered by Unbeatable Mecha, on the run, no people left.
A world of Hemophilia.
A world where each PC has 1 HP.
A detective story / mystery
A CSI Forensics story.
Swiss Family Robinson.
Tom Hanks in Cast Away
Robinson Crusoe
My own Birthright is pretty bloody since bloodtheft exists. There's LOTS of combat. more than just the average dungeon bash.
The point is well made, though. Like a 7th Sea Montaigne kind of deal sans rapiers, certainly. Every move is a chess move for favor, and status with the nobles around.
My own Birthright is pretty bloody since bloodtheft exists. There's LOTS of combat. more than just the average dungeon bash.
I really liked Birthright. I bought the books when it came out and I think I still have some floating around in my warehouse... if you ever run a game online, hit me up. I think it was one of TSR's more interesting settings, combining realm management with adventuring. Back in the day, I ran Planescape the most, even into 3.0 (with conversions). Now it's all Eberron.
I can't be entirely certain, since you haven't overtly stated your preference, but I'm guessing that you among those who would not like to play in a no-combat D&D game correct?
Same for you Man in the Funny Hat?
A lot would depend on the execution of course, but yeah, if it's "D&D" I'd have a tendency to at least WANT to engage in gratuitous violence.
Interesting scenario Etarnon. Question for you, are you positing a setting without NPCs because you too feel that any given can degenerate into combat and to rule such a possibility out would break strain the suspension of disbelief necessary to play?
My first thought about a D&D game of without combat was an exploration of ancient ruins. Sort of Indiana Jonesish without the Nazi's. As in, nobody else is aware of the ruins existence so nobody is trying to beat the party into a pulp to secure their own finder's fee. The players could explore the ruins, pass some traps, net some treasure, interact with the people necessary to sell it or donate it or whatever they would do with it.
First, "degenerate" implies that combat is a lesser or non-desirable state.
Second, any interaction with any living entity could turn into combat with the simple phrase, "I punch him in the face..." How are you going to adjudicate that? Will you kick that player out of the game, or simply say the action doesn't work? This is why a scenario with no NPCs is most desirable to avoid combat.
Third, based on your descriptions, I doubt I would enjoy this sort of game. If you said, "Hey, I'm running D&D with absolutely no combat," I probably wouldn't want to play. I enjoy the combat aspects of D&D from a strategic perspective.
Okay, Iserith, I'll add you to the growing list for my tentatively planned Birthright via openRPG game. I'm trying to pull it together. Mostly making maps at this point. Don't hold your breath. At least a month off if not more...and likely more.
Cool. I just moved this weekend to Medellin, Colombia, leaving my long-time gaming group behind. /tear
So I'm sure I'll be desperate for a game pretty soon.
That's a fine list of skills, but ... is everybody going to be a rogue or bard ?
And does Charm Person win the game ?
* Forgery: Can be fun, but what happens when you're caught? Do you roll a d3 to see wheither the PC runs off, ends in jail or somehow knocked out the victim?
* Hide: Normally to avoid combat. What if they spot you ? See Forgery.
* Escape Artist: Wait .. what? Since this is a non-combat game, how did you get tied up in the first place ? ... Oh, I see
* Craft: Have you looked at the craft skill?! "So, after a whole week/ 2 weeks/ a month of basketweaving, you finally manage to make little red riding hood a cruddy/ beautifull/ the ultimate picnic basket."
* Balance: "Yaaai, I don't fall to my death!" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Yeah! I slice it's head off and p*ss down it's neck!"
* Climb: See Balance
D&D without the combat really does sound a whole lot like storytelling to me.
That's a fine list of skills, but ... is everybody going to be a rogue or bard ?
Beguiler, Scout, Ranger Swordsages have decent skills, Cloistered Cleric, Ninja, Spellthief, I believe Thug fighter variant wouldn't even be that bad... etc.
* Forgery: Can be fun, but what happens when you're caught? Do you roll a d3 to see wheither the PC runs off, ends in jail or somehow knocked out the victim?
Probably go to jail, like in RL... people don't normally fight back, (even tough guys), they just go to jail rather than face more punishment... where this (points down) becomes VITAL.
* Escape Artist: Wait .. what? Since this is a non-combat game, how did you get tied up in the first place ? ... Oh, I see
* Hide: Normally to avoid combat. What if they spot you ? See Forgery.
It could aid in escaping from jail. "Hey, there was a prisoner in here earlier... I'll just open the door and check..." (whistling, opens door) *character slips out with Move Silently check and/or climb check if he's hiding on the ceiling somehow, who knows... be more creative than "I attack the guard"* You can use skill checks in combination with each other, which could easily replace the multiple rolls in swinging weapons, etc. If DMed right, you do get just as much fun out of skill checks as attack/damage rolls.
*Craft: Have you looked at the craft skill?! "So, after a whole week/ 2 weeks/ a month of basketweaving, you finally manage to make little red riding hood a cruddy/ beautifull/ the ultimate picnic basket."
If you really look at the craft skill it also has rules for crafting by the day... but that's not even a big deal because guess what! There are crafting feats/abilities/etc for things that only take a set amount of time to craft (e.g. runes for rune magic... 10 minutes)
* Balance: "Yaaai, I don't fall to my death!" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Yeah! I slice it's head off and p*ss down it's neck!"
Wow... just wow... I'm losing faith in humanity...
There's so many things you could incorporate balance check into to increase your ability to do something sweet that's not just "I'm walking a tightrope for no apparent reason, I hope I don't fall." Like I said, you can use skills in combinations or balance can even become important to allow you to do something else "I'll distract the evil emperor with a crazy 'juggling-while-balancing-a-chair-on-my-chin act' while you steal the papers from his study and leave the forgeries in their place, ha ha, we'll dethrone this tyrant, yet, and have him replaced by his kind and beneficent cousin, good job crafting that amazing disguise by the way." "Well, just make sure your performance is believable.
Is anyone even thinking about changing their minds... seriously... anyone...?
ryguysolis... I really thought that there would be enough people on the forums representing a decent sized group that would feel the way I do. I'm shocked that so many people wouldn't be interested... it's even more shocking to find that people can't think of enough neat things to do with skills and abilities that aren't combat related within D&D to at least feel intrigued enough to be curious to try it out and actually... optimistic that it could work. Sorry if none of my posting is contributing to the question you want answered but I'm really interested in this too... just... appalled at the same time. Just let me know if I'm just getting in the way of what you really want to get at.
ryguysolis... I really thought that there would be enough people on the forums representing a decent sized group that would feel the way I do. I'm shocked that so many people wouldn't be interested... it's even more shocking to find that people can't think of enough neat things to do with skills and abilities that aren't combat related within D&D to at least feel intrigued enough to be curious to try it out and actually... optimistic that it could work. Sorry if none of my posting is contributing to the question you want answered but I'm really interested in this too... just... appalled at the same time. Just let me know if I'm just getting in the way of what you really want to get at.
I'm not particularly shocked. I've only been hanging out here a few days, and one thing I see, and it is actually kinda ironic, is how prescient some of the criticisms of 3/3.5 ed. were. What I'm seeing is World of Warcraft players playing DnD as if it were World of Warcraft. Mixed in is some good stuff, but a lot of players posting their assurances as to what works seem to have missed one vital rule (Rule Zero, AKA DM is God), and that the best players don't play the system, they play the DM.
I would certainly be up for something like a no combat game, seeing as I have played in a game where the DM went three sessions without rolling a dice once, and the only combat that occured was between PCs. The DM openly admitted he didn't know the d20 rules, had no intention of learning, and had no plans to pit us into any fights. The game still worked, and felt like DnD though...
Wow... just wow... I'm losing faith in humanity...
There's so many things you could incorporate balance check into to increase your ability to do something sweet that's not just "I'm walking a tightrope for no apparent reason, I hope I don't fall." Like I said, you can use skills in combinations or balance can even become important to allow you to do something else "I'll distract the evil emperor with a crazy 'juggling-while-balancing-a-chair-on-my-chin act' while you steal the papers from his study and leave the forgeries in their place, ha ha, we'll dethrone this tyrant, yet, and have him replaced by his kind and beneficent cousin, good job crafting that amazing disguise by the way." "Well, just make sure your performance is believable.
Is anyone even thinking about changing their minds... seriously... anyone...?
ryguysolis... I really thought that there would be enough people on the forums representing a decent sized group that would feel the way I do. I'm shocked that so many people wouldn't be interested... it's even more shocking to find that people can't think of enough neat things to do with skills and abilities that aren't combat related within D&D to at least feel intrigued enough to be curious to try it out and actually... optimistic that it could work. Sorry if none of my posting is contributing to the question you want answered but I'm really interested in this too... just... appalled at the same time. Just let me know if I'm just getting in the way of what you really want to get at.
Those are all good examples of non-combat uses of skills, and creative ways out of situations without combat as well. Don't get me wrong, my first reaction as a player to a bunch of guards arresting me isn't, "I attack!" Many of these strategies I've employed myself. But a game completely devoid of combat or even the choice of combat? No... I wouldn't be interested, and I'm changing my mind at this point either. Like I said previously, I enjoy the tactical nature of D&D's combat system. While I am interested in roleplaying, creative solutions to problems and storytelling, I also enjoy the tactical aspect. Why would I voluntarily desire to remove one aspect from the game that I enjoy?
Also, I think that combat can be a very strong element of good roleplay. It is harder to engage in combat without killing or compromising your morals than it is to just avoid combat. We had a Heroes unlimited game where we truly played heroes. There were no deaths caused by action or inaction of anyone in the group for the whole campaign. It ran until level 8 (palladium games level 8 is roughly 15 to 16 in 3.X). This was way tougher to pull off than any of the no/minimal combat story lines I have been involved with.
That said... if you want to run it, run it. Good luck to you, but not really my cup of tea. I do not want pointless senseless slaughter, but combat is a strong roleplay element that lets you define your character in the playstyle of our gaming group.
I'm not particularly shocked. I've only been hanging out here a few days, and one thing I see, and it is actually kinda ironic, is how prescient some of the criticisms of 3/3.5 ed. were. What I'm seeing is World of Warcraft players playing DnD as if it were World of Warcraft. Mixed in is some good stuff, but a lot of players posting their assurances as to what works seem to have missed one vital rule (Rule Zero, AKA DM is God), and that the best players don't play the system, they play the DM.
This seems like a plausible reason for a portion of the popular sentiment... good point. I know that those in our gaming group who thrive on the combat alone are more "video-game" oriented than the others in their approach to RPing. They are also those types who search every dead monster for treasure and are surprised when none is found ("Um... it was a bear... where would it get enchanted armor or potions of cure moderate wounds from?" "Well... was there at least some gold?" *shakes head in disgust and bewilderment*).
Those are all good examples of non-combat uses of skills, and creative ways out of situations without combat as well. [...] No... I wouldn't be interested [...]. Like I said previously, I enjoy the tactical nature of D&D's combat system. While I am interested in roleplaying, creative solutions to problems and storytelling, I also enjoy the tactical aspect. Why would I voluntarily desire to remove one aspect from the game that I enjoy?
Partially answered earlier, but more directly... why not? I'm more surprised that people aren't curious/wouldn't even try it once (That's like saying you don't like some type of cake and wouldn't taste it once because you like strawberries and they're not in it, you can always spit it out, pass it off to someone else, and go right back to your strawberry cake... it just seems so close-minded). Like I said... I enjoy combat, too. Personally, part of my reason is to have the opportunity to heavily explore the other aspects of the system that I tend to not get enough of because our DM's are constantly having to cater to players who want combat every minute of every game and turn all non-combat encounters as quickly as possible into combat situations. There are a lot of fun and interesting non-combat situations that have been ruined for me because of one person who is obsessed with reverting immediately to fighting to solve a problem. I wouldn't mind foregoing the combat for one campaign experience just to see what it would be like... out of curiosity, as well. It also provides a chance to really flex the creative muscle... it's too easy if you allow combat as a backup/less intuitive option/whatever for that one person to say, "Oops, we used up all our options, I swing!" before they really give the party a chance to actually solve the problem.
Truly, maybe everyone of the opposite opinion is more fortunate and actually gets to have more time and fun with their non-combat encounters and therefore have no need/interest in a campaign composed entirely of those encounters.
I suppose, too, I have more of a problem with claims that the D&D system is "ill-equipped" for that sort of campaign. It's one thing to provide the answer to the question "would you be interested?" and quite another to assert that it can't even be done well/there aren't decent options within D&D/etc. It just seems close-minded. I, personally, don't have a problem with people suggesting systems that may be better (that's probably somewhat helpful to the OP) but implications/statements that D&D is completely inadequate for a non-combat campaign based on the structure of its system... don't seem as helpful. I'm not saying it should be done either (more good points from another poster)... I'm just, again, surprised that so many people express (what seems to be) revulsion at the mere mention.
Sorry for ranting a bit... I'm in exam week at college so, I'm in writing mode, didn't mean to write a lot but I wanted to respond to a few responses to myself. Plus, I wanted to make sure that I'm not being misunderstood as some sort of pacifist and/or non-combat tyrant or something. I love all parts of the game equally.
Partially answered earlier, but more directly... why not? I'm more surprised that people aren't curious/wouldn't even try it once (That's like saying you don't like some type of cake and wouldn't taste it once because you like strawberries and they're not in it, you can always spit it out, pass it off to someone else, and go right back to your strawberry cake... it just seems so close-minded).
Improper analogy. It's more like I have the option of eating angelfood cake with frosting or angelfood cake without frosting. I like angelfood cake and I like frosting. Why would I want to take the one I'll like less?
Like I said... I enjoy combat, too. Personally, part of my reason is to have the opportunity to heavily explore the other aspects of the system that I tend to not get enough of because our DM's are constantly having to cater to players who want combat every minute of every game and turn all non-combat encounters as quickly as possible into combat situations. There are a lot of fun and interesting non-combat situations that have been ruined for me because of one person who is obsessed with reverting immediately to fighting to solve a problem. I wouldn't mind foregoing the combat for one campaign experience just to see what it would be like... out of curiosity, as well. It also provides a chance to really flex the creative muscle... it's too easy if you allow combat as a backup/less intuitive option/whatever for that one person to say, "Oops, we used up all our options, I swing!" before they really give the party a chance to actually solve the problem.
Poor players and trouble players will continue to be poor/trouble players regardless of what you say. If you're gaming with people who turn every single encounter into a combat encounter, that's a problem with the player, not the game or system you're using. I appreciate the desire to explore other options to their fullest, I'm just saying that I think that can be done while retaining combat as a possibility.
Truly, maybe everyone of the opposite opinion is more fortunate and actually gets to have more time and fun with their non-combat encounters and therefore have no need/interest in a campaign composed entirely of those encounters.
That's a possibility. In the campaign I DM there can be entire 8 hour sessions that have no combat encounters.
I suppose, too, I have more of a problem with claims that the D&D system is "ill-equipped" for that sort of campaign. It's one thing to provide the answer to the question "would you be interested?" and quite another to assert that it can't even be done well/there aren't decent options within D&D/etc. It just seems close-minded. I, personally, don't have a problem with people suggesting systems that may be better (that's probably somewhat helpful to the OP) but implications/statements that D&D is completely inadequate for a non-combat campaign based on the structure of its system... don't seem as helpful. I'm not saying it should be done either (more good points from another poster)... I'm just, again, surprised that so many people express (what seems to be) revulsion at the mere mention.
I agree with this sentiment. I honestly think that the 3.5 mechanics can be easily adapted to non-combat oriented games, or even used as written to facilitate such a game. It would be based heavily off of skill checks, saving throws and other mechanics without requiring combat. I can easily see it being used that way, and I don't believe I've ever told you that it's impossible. I simply wouldn't be interested in such a game.
ryguysolis... I really thought that there would be enough people on the forums representing a decent sized group that would feel the way I do. I'm shocked that so many people wouldn't be interested... it's even more shocking to find that people can't think of enough neat things to do with skills and abilities that aren't combat related within D&D to at least feel intrigued enough to be curious to try it out and actually... optimistic that it could work. Sorry if none of my posting is contributing to the question you want answered but I'm really interested in this too... just... appalled at the same time. Just let me know if I'm just getting in the way of what you really want to get at.
I did not envision, based on what I've seen on these boards, that many people would go for a no-combat game. What is "shocking"
to me, what I didn't expect to find, was what I see as a near total lack of support for the skill system in 3.5 as... well... a skill system. It seems many people primarily use the skills to avoid or supplement combat. That is something I haven't experienced in the games I play and run.It's also very surprising/nice to see the support for low-combat games, which I have actually run before and may again in the future.
Thanks so much everyone for carrying on the conversation while I was moving and without internet this past weekend. All moved in now so I can get back to posting.
To be fair, I don't have much experience with systems outside of D&D. I'm just going by what I've heard throughout the years about other systems being more heavily reliant upon your character's skillset rather than his combat prowess. What those systems might be I leave to those more experienced than me.
I would play a low/no combat DnD game, but I would very much like it when my DM warned me up front. We recently played this intrigue, crime solving Eberron one-nighter for example and I feld ridicilous because I was the back-up, in case-of-emergency fighter.
Improper analogy. It's more like I have the option of eating angelfood cake with frosting or angelfood cake without frosting. I like angelfood cake and I like frosting. Why would I want to take the one I'll like less?
Just to clear it up... the analogies are more the same than you realize, I just didn't do as good of a job of explicitly stating the alternative options but simultaneously I wasn't referring directly to your situation but the other more close-minded opinions that I've heard. I meant my analogy toward the people who would never try any cake that didn't have strawberries just because of how much they like the strawberries (where strawberries = combat, regardless of what else is in the cake, whether they like those things or not... if the strawberries aren't there, they're not biting). Get my meaning?
And with the problem players... in my particular situation, they would not want to play in the non-combat campaign, so they wouldn't be ruining anything... they'd be helping it by not being there because they'd know from the start that they wouldn't get anything out of it if they aren't allowed combat as an option at all... which... as my point was in my saying what I said, is what would be half the attraction for me. I would know that I'm playing with more like-minded people from the beginning and I wouldn't have unusable class abilities because someone else is ruining every opportunity I might have to use it.
Just to clear it up... the analogies are more the same than you realize, I just didn't do as good of a job of explicitly stating the alternative options but simultaneously I wasn't referring directly to your situation but the other more close-minded opinions that I've heard. I meant my analogy toward the people who would never try any cake that didn't have strawberries just because of how much they like the strawberries (where strawberries = combat, regardless of what else is in the cake, whether they like those things or not... if the strawberries aren't there, they're not biting). Get my meaning?
I think I see now. The analogies are muddying the waters though, and they're unnecessary to boot. Let's just say this: I like all aspects of D&D, so I wouldn't choose to remove one of them. I wouldn't want there to be no combat just as I wouldn't want there to be no traps, no skill checks, no NPC interaction, et cetera.
And with the problem players... in my particular situation, they would not want to play in the non-combat campaign, so they wouldn't be ruining anything... they'd be helping it by not being there because they'd know from the start that they wouldn't get anything out of it if they aren't allowed combat as an option at all... which... as my point was in my saying what I said, is what would be half the attraction for me. I would know that I'm playing with more like-minded people from the beginning and I wouldn't have unusable class abilities because someone else is ruining every opportunity I might have to use it.
So you're removing an aspect of the game to get rid of some players who only like that aspect? Why not just ban those players and run a normal game?
I didn't mean that I'm removing the aspect in order to remove the players. I just happen to see that side-effect as desirable in the event of a non-combat campaign because of the nature of the campaign itself. Besides, when combat is going on, those players are fine and can help to make the game more fun... it's just that we're incompatible when they want to run in guns blazing and a couple others would like to try sneaking around, etc. I don't want to get rid of those people completely, but their past actions do play a part in my interest in a campaign that wouldn't have combat at all because those times that they ruined whenever maybe would get a chance to be played out in a way that I had wanted and never got to experience. Sort of like "the one the got away," there's been a lot of lost opportunities for me that would easily find fruition in a campaign where no one would be allowed to rush in and attack. Again, it's not even that I prefer the non-combat route... I just haven't been given the opportunity to use them in campaigns where combat is allowed as often as I'd like. Therefore, yeah... I'll toss out a part of the campaign that I like to get a chance to focus on another part that I like that I've lost opportunities to enjoy... at least for one time... for one try, to keep my mind open, challenges new, and the different experience (one that I know I would never get in a campaign that allows the combat).
If you wouldn't... I just don't know... seems highly inflexible...
If you wouldn't... I just don't know... seems highly inflexible...
I've been called worse. ;)
I've been called worse. ;)
Heh, yeah, no worries, I'm not going to try to insult you. We just have different opinions on the subject, no hard feelings, no reason to flame anyone.
Heh, yeah, no worries, I'm not going to try to insult you. We just have different opinions on the subject, no hard feelings, no reason to flame anyone.
I agree. Combat makes up a large part of why I like D&D. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy roleplay. I enjoy sneaking around. I enjoy figuring out puzzles and overcoming non-combat obstacles. However, I also get all tingly when the chips go down; when I've finally tracked the dragon to his lair and I'm ready to rock. I couldn't imagine a game without it.