D&D 5E Would you play D&D if you knew there would be no combat?

[Nebulous]

It would be a no for me too. In the other thread some people were saying combat wasn't necessary for DnD (or very little), some said it was, I was just curious. In that instance the DM was looking for a brand new group, so I wanted to equate that here. If your long term DM wanted to run something new, most groups wouldn't hesitate too much.

 

[Jediking]

I voted NO

Same as many other posters - DnD is a based as a combat-focused game that is designed around resource attrition and encounters. It can and is able to run without a large focus on combat, but is more reliant on having a good DM and player group to agree on that style.

For a campaign that doesn't include any, or extremely limited, combat there are plenty of great RPGs that are built around that design and will offer a much richer experience and will have rules and options to support that style of play.


I haven't played it personally, but I had looked at the Game of Thrones RPG and it seemed to include a robust ruleset for intrigue and political options, where there was still a combat system in place. Just one example of the design of the game supporting the base type of game.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted 'other', because while if the pitch was engaging I'd be happy to give it a try, it's ironclad guaranteed the PCs are going to initiate combat at some point for some reason even if the DM doesn't.

I'd also be very curious as to how xp would be awarded, and for what, as milestone or all-at-once levelling is a complete non-starter for me.

EDIT TO ADD: my comments assume this would be a campaign rather than just a one-off.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Prompted by another thread; if you were involved in a new D&D game and were aware up front it would NOT be a combat heavy game, or hardly any combat at all, but rather exploration and mystery and horror, would you still play? Assume you do not know the DM and he is not a friend, this is all 100% new.

Probably not. Not that a low-/no- combat game couldn't have a lot of potential, but 'exploration' is often code for very tedious dungeon-/hex- crawling and d20 doesn't easily do horror. Now, if it were mystery, and, say, intrigue, discovery, & romance, that could be cool, but, I'd still need to have reason to suppose the DM would be up to the challenge, because the system in question isn't.(Edit: that's not quite fair, really. I'd want to be sure a 5e DM is up to the challenge, regardless of the focus of the proposed campaign.)

OTOH, if it were FATE or PbtA or Gumshoe I'd be more inclined to give it a go, even with an unknown-quantity GM.

 

[Blue]

When I run D&D and D&D-like games, it's common that there can be sessions without combat. But mechanically, D&D focuses a lot more effort on combat than anything else. I'd think that a DM who wants to runa different genre without combat but use the D&D system needs to be introduced to other systems with different focus that may be a better fit for their style and the type of campaign they want to run.

So I'd play an RPG without combat, which I'm sure would be full of other types of challenges, but I think it's misguided to use D&D rules as the vehicle for that type of campaign so I'll vote no.

EDIT: Someone mentioned a player who only knows D&D wanting to run a one-shot. I would do that. I just don't think it's a good vehicle for an campaign.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rules in the book provide a safety net against a bad DM, but most of the rules in D&D govern combat. If the campaign isn't about combat, then I have very little idea of what to expect, and very little protection against DM fiat. I would need some other reason to trust the DM, before buying into that.

The tangential issue is that D&D doesn't do a good job of describing a believable world to role-play in, because of all the concessions that the ruleset makes toward combat gameplay. I could role-play in a fantasy setting where combat was rare-to-nonexistant, but the rules would have to treat the world a bit more seriously than D&D does.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm the type who would rather game with friends, but I am open to a low/no combat game.

Though I'm mainly commenting so I can bring this thread up some time in the future.

 

[Horwath]

You can always make it more combat

 

[Doc_Klueless]

No. In my opinion, there are far too many other games that do no to light combat better than D&D. That and the classes are pretty much built around combat being a thing, if not the central thing.

 

[Shiroiken]

As others have pointed out, there are MUCH better game systems that would work for combat light/non-combat games. However, there is nothing wrong with using the existing system for this, but it would make a major change in class/sub-class choice. Barbarian and Fighter provide basically nothing to such a campaign, and others might be of less use, such as the Monk, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger. Most casters would still be of use, and the Rogue would be the best non-caster class.