Combatless sessions

[SabreCat]

Yeah, the lack of a turn structure was definitely part of it. It was fun while the characters were all attending a grand dance, each up to their own thing. (My Rogue got engaged to a prince!) It started to bog when the Paladin went to talk to some three or four different NPCs in succession seeking advice on a moral quandary she faced, and any meaningful commentary the rest of us offered ran into the "hey, you aren't there" problem.

In a more general sense, the trouble I have with noncombat D&D--especially noncombat, non-skill-challenge D&D--is that it's slippery. By slippery, I mean the opposite of "crunchy" or rules-heavy, with a negative connotation to it. Unless you're performing a ritual or have some unusually specific out-of-combat feats and features (things like the Knight Hospitaler theme features perhaps), there's little way to know what the consequences of success or failure on a roll are. You can't look to your character sheet to figure out what you can and can't do, what options you have.

"But that's the point! You have to improvise and be creative!" Sure. Thing is, the success or failure of that improvisation and creativity lie entirely in the DM's court. You can announce the intent of a die roll, but the DM isn't obligated to make that intent come through. And sometimes she isn't even equipped to do so--during the aforementioned session, several players wanted to research the location they'd been tasked to delve, so History rolls started. A 25 (we're 19th level) got a nice little blurb about the legends surrounding the place. A 26 earned the same thing. It wasn't until the third or fourth player tried their roll and got a 41 with pretty much the same result that we learned, oh, the DM doesn't have any more information on the place than that. A game with a more robust knowledge-check system would have let the player add some facts to the world, with an extraordinary roll like that!

And at the end of the day (game session?), that's what it comes down to, for me. D&D4 is really good at and designed for heroic or superheroic, tactical, board-gamey battle scenes. They're enormous fun from one session and encounter to the next. But for things that don't involve greatswords and fireballs, there's not much structure to hang the "G" part of "RPG" on. I kitbash some more interesting mechanics into the plot- and setting-focused segments of my own campaign, but I know that if I really want a game to shine in those arenas, I pick a different game. Burning Wheel, some flavor of FATE, In a Wicked Age, etc. Play to your game's strengths, I say!

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

In a more general sense, the trouble I have with noncombat D&D--especially noncombat, non-skill-challenge D&D--is that it's slippery. By slippery, I mean the opposite of "crunchy" or rules-heavy, with a negative connotation to it. Unless you're performing a ritual or have some unusually specific out-of-combat feats and features (things like the Knight Hospitaler theme features perhaps), there's little way to know what the consequences of success or failure on a roll are. You can't look to your character sheet to figure out what you can and can't do, what options you have.

I have seen players do this a lot, and in every RPG I've played. This is a particular issue with newer players, or ones less confident in their ability to roleplay their characters. They are faced with a situation, and the first thing they do is look at their sheet, as though some kind of "answer" will pop out at them. I tell them the same thing - it won't.

"But that's the point! You have to improvise and be creative!" Sure. Thing is, the success or failure of that improvisation and creativity lie entirely in the DM's court. You can announce the intent of a die roll, but the DM isn't obligated to make that intent come through. And sometimes she isn't even equipped to do so--during the aforementioned session, several players wanted to research the location they'd been tasked to delve, so History rolls started. A 25 (we're 19th level) got a nice little blurb about the legends surrounding the place. A 26 earned the same thing. It wasn't until the third or fourth player tried their roll and got a 41 with pretty much the same result that we learned, oh, the DM doesn't have any more information on the place than that. A game with a more robust knowledge-check system would have let the player add some facts to the world, with an extraordinary roll like that!

This is exactly it. In situations like this it does come down to the DM, entirely, and your example is a perfect illustration of how important good DMing skills can be.

It can and has been argued that 4th edition made it a design element to lower any and all barriers for entry to becoming a DM - a good goal, to be sure - but that doesn't mean that just anyone can be a good DM, at least, not without practice and experience. This isn't to say that I'm a DMing elitist (everyone has to start somewhere), just that the situation you described, and those like it, can be more easily handled by more experienced DMs.

So while a more robust knowledge check system could be used, placing the onus on the system, it could also be placed on the DM. In the case of your example, the DM could have provided another tidbit of information on the location being researched, perhaps one made up, or something the players would not normally have any reason to know. Even provide it in metagame terms - like, "you find out about a specific trap or a clue to a puzzle, which I will tell you about when you get there," kind of thing. Or even telling the players that they find a map (a partial, rough, and possibly wrong one), that again, will be provided later.

And at the end of the day (game session?), that's what it comes down to, for me. D&D4 is really good at and designed for heroic or superheroic, tactical, board-gamey battle scenes. They're enormous fun from one session and encounter to the next. But for things that don't involve greatswords and fireballs, there's not much structure to hang the "G" part of "RPG" on. I kitbash some more interesting mechanics into the plot- and setting-focused segments of my own campaign, but I know that if I really want a game to shine in those arenas, I pick a different game. Burning Wheel, some flavor of FATE, In a Wicked Age, etc. Play to your game's strengths, I say!

This is probably a fair assessment, but IME, it has far more to do with the rest of the group (i.e. playstyle) than it does the game we're playing.

 

[SabreCat]

They are faced with a situation, and the first thing they do is look at their sheet, as though some kind of "answer" will pop out at them. I tell them the same thing - it won't.

Thing is, in games that are designed to support that style of play, it does. Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits from the Burning series, Aspects from FATE, Best Interests from In a Wicked Age... these things very much do tell the player, "Hit a slow or uncertain moment? Here are some ideas for how to make things happen." And to steer back a little closer to my original point, the system will back their play when they choose it. In D&D4, you get that feedback and those options in combat, but not out of it.

So while a more robust knowledge check system could be used, placing the onus on the system, it could also be placed on the DM.

Fair enough. Me, I'd rather that if the DM's having an off night, or the player gets a deer-in-the-headlights freeze, the game gives them tools to get unstuck. In a game without those tools, I steer toward the segments of play that work more reliably from session to session.

 

[jbear]

My experience: Non-combat sessions are not uncommon. It depends where the adventure is at, what my players are doing etc. I certainly don't deliberately throw in a combat because I think every session should have combat.

Combats have become so lethal and deadly that my players, though they love a good fight, don't actively go out to start a fight.

But I have players that also love roleplaying, exploring etc etc and I think its fair to let everyone get their share of the moments they most enjoy.

 

[catastrophic]

I tend to average about one combat to two noncombat sessions. I run two weekly games using maptool, and both games are very story heavy and set in the same world. A lot can happen without anybody hitting anyone, but when hitting does happen, it tends to be pretty epic, no matter what the tier.

There is also a running joke where some of my players who are more combat inclined constantly remark that while they are usually not big fans of noncombat sessions, they really enjoy the ones that actually occur in the game.

I think a lot of it is about managing spotlight time and making the situation meaningful and engaging, rather than huge npc driven scenes, exposition dumps, and I must say, even planning gets to a point where it can be circular and frustrating, espcially if an argument breaks out over strategy.

 

[Water Bob]

Chris Perkis has a column where he talks about running two consecutive combat-free sessions.

Who else has run sessions with no combats?

I don't play 4e, but I did just run 4 sessions in a row that had no combat in them (sorta--see if it qualifies).

The first game session was first for the campaign. We're playing the Conan RPG (based on d20 3.5), and the PCs are Cimmerians. All are 1st level Barbarian characters, all the members of the same clan, all about the same age.

Session One started with the PCs at 12 years old. The focus of the session was the clan rite that boys of their age attempt to begin warrior training. It's a race--a type of obstacle course type race--around the village. Those that finish the race are deemed worthy to begin warrior training (it's a three year training program). The race is designed to separate those not physically able (mature) to begin training from those who are not.

Instead of combat, the drama in this game session came from running this race. I had set up a pretty detailed course and rules. The race took them around the village, climbing up a sheer cliff, jumping across a crevass, balancing on an old dead tree across a stream, jumping off a cliff into a pool of water to swim to the shore, wading through a knee-deep bog, and the like.

It was pretty fun. The players had a blast.





Session Two, we picked up a year later. The boys were a year into their training now. And, basically, then entire game session centered around roleplaying with NPCs I had made up in the village. The boys were setting up their careers with the other villagers--so that took most of the game session. I also put some NPC girls into the mix to interact with the PCs, and I created some new NPCs boys a year behind the PCs who didn't like them and would start a lot of trouble.

This was the focus of this game--the animosity between the PCs and the new male NPCs who were "starting crap" with them, and the eagerness to get the older villagers to take them on as apprentices to the various careers available in the village.

We had one character start down the path of becoming a weapon smith. Another is becoming a hunter. Another is a trapper. And a fourth is a Watchman, which is the small full-time security force that the clan uses.



Sesson three saw the inclusion of a new player, so all the roleplaying centered around bringing this new character into the game. I gotta tell you, the other games were fun, but this one was our best session to date. I set up lots of intrigue with this new player. He's an orphan (the other PCs have NPC families that we've created), and his father is "rex" (which is a Cimmerian term that he did something so dishonorable that the clan does not acknowledge that he ever lived).

So, this game session had plenty of mystery/intrigue, and it was extremely fun to watch the players interact with the older NPCs trying to learn something about this PC's father while the NPCs are all honor-bound never to acknowledge him at all.

I also played through some wacked out dreams I had created (with a lot of symbolism in them--that the players can decipher if they put their minds to it, telling them about the hidden parts of the story). I played these "straight" where the player had to figure out he was dreaming. It was a highlight of the night's gaming.





Session four saw some "action", kinda-sorta. It's now two years since the game began (game years--the PCs are about 14 years old now), and the biggest fair that the clan celebrates all year is in full swing. The boys are getting close to "graduating" and becoming accepted as warriors.

I created some contests (as a means for them to gain equipment) for them. So, we really did do some "combat" in this session--it's just that it wasn't "real" combat. The boys uses makeshift shields and wooden training swords.

I set up some tournaments, and the winner this one won a shield. The winner of that one won a spear. You get the idea.

You get the idea.





Session Five is coming up in a week or so. I think it's time for some real combat. I'm going to pick up a few hours after we quit last time. The fair is coming to an end, and some of the clansmen are returning to the outlying homesteads. I plan on the NPCs to be somewhat away from the village, near the road, collecting firewood when they hear some screams.

If they go an investigate, a rival clan has attacked a wagon of the leaving clansmen, and there is a battle taking place. The PCs can join--it will be their first real battle for the campaign (and I plan on "playing up" the first human kills that these characters experience).

I think the battle will go towards the PCs, and if it does, I've set up this neat chase sequence as the bad guys bolt, running up an over a nearby hill.

The otherside of the hill ends in a cliff that is about 40' above the forested floor. I plan on having a NPC bad guy jump from the cliff straight into the branches of a nearby tree. You never can foretell what the players will do, but I'm hoping they'll follow him. And, I'm envisioning this fight and/or chase among the limbs and branches of this tree, 40 feet above the forested floor.

I see people running along limbs, jumping from one to another. Taking vines and swinging, Tarzan-like, from tree to tree. Finally ending close to a swampy area and a mountain stream with rough rapids that ends in a water fall. The object will be, of course, to get the NPC on the other side of that river so that the PCs will follow.

I think #5 will be a pretty exciting session.

I've even got this idea that sees the bad guy NPC run and grab a vine that swings him over the river, where he drops and has to make some swim checks against the rapids.

A PC follows, jump from the limb and grabs another vine--only this isn't a vine. It's a Cimmerian Vine Viper--a long, thin, poisonous snake. How cool is that going to be describing the PC, swinging over a raging mountain river holding onto a snake! The snake's head bends towards the character and starts snapping at him with those venomous teeth. Then, the PC and the snake both fall into the river! The PC has to fight the rapids, chase the bad guy, not go over the falls, and make it to the other side before the snake get 'em.



Anyway, that's how I've been running my game, and I've got no complaints, yet. In fact, my players seemed glued to the game--so, that just goes to show you how interesting non-combat games can be.

 

[pemerton]

the lack of a turn structure was definitely part of it.

<snip>

the trouble I have with noncombat D&D--especially noncombat, non-skill-challenge D&D--is that it's slippery. By slippery, I mean the opposite of "crunchy" or rules-heavy, with a negative connotation to it. Unless you're performing a ritual or have some unusually specific out-of-combat feats and features (things like the Knight Hospitaler theme features perhaps), there's little way to know what the consequences of success or failure on a roll are. You can't look to your character sheet to figure out what you can and can't do, what options you have.

"But that's the point! You have to improvise and be creative!" Sure. Thing is, the success or failure of that improvisation and creativity lie entirely in the DM's court. You can announce the intent of a die roll, but the DM isn't obligated to make that intent come through. And sometimes she isn't even equipped to do so--during the aforementioned session, several players wanted to research the location they'd been tasked to delve, so History rolls started. A 25 (we're 19th level) got a nice little blurb about the legends surrounding the place. A 26 earned the same thing. It wasn't until the third or fourth player tried their roll and got a 41 with pretty much the same result that we learned, oh, the DM doesn't have any more information on the place than that. A game with a more robust knowledge-check system would have let the player add some facts to the world, with an extraordinary roll like that!

<snip>

Play to your game's strengths, I say!

In situations like this it does come down to the DM, entirely, and your example is a perfect illustration of how important good DMing skills can be.

I agree that 4e D&D requires the GM to carry a big load in these non-combat/non-skill challenge situations, but I tend to agree with SabreCat that this is a flaw rather than a virtue.

I use a range of ad hoc techniques to try and handle this aspect of the game - for example, when the History or Perception rolls are on, if the PCs have learned all that I have to tell them, I will tend just to let that be known at the metagame level, so at least the game doesn't bog down in pointless rolling. But on the whole I try to keep this sort of exploration to a minimum, or - if the players are interested in it - to try to find a way to frame it as a skill challenge instead, so there can be some moderately clear stakes and the players then know how to bring their PCs' abilities to bear.

 

[Robtheman]

Practical motivations for non-combat sessions

Great stuff in this thread. Thanks for sharing all your experiences.

I tend to run non-combat sessions for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. Someone fails to show up at the last minute and I really want the full party to be involved in a specific combat scene. In that case I ramp up the story telling. I typically do this when there are 2 or 3 people available. 4 or 5 seems to be the best for tactical battles.

The non-combat scenes benefit from having fewer people at the table because it is much easier for them to reach consensus and for me to meet all of their gaming needs. 4+ and I'm stretched to keep all of their attentions or cultivate their stories.

2. The story demands it. We don't force combat. Sometimes you need to resolve some portion of the plot without killing the parties involved. In those cases the players depend on the DM to do some heavy lifting with the environmental descriptions, NPC behaviors, etc.

My two cents.