D&D 5E Would you play D&D if you knew there would be no combat?
- Thread starter Nebulous
- Start date
Stormonu
Legend
I have to admit that killing critters is something I enjoy in D&D. But, I’ve managed to run several sessions where no combat occurs (or it was quickly RPed, without a round-by-round).
By the same token, I don’t think I could handle a campaign with no combat - I’d go stir crazy at some point. But, by the same token I can’t stand a campaign that is one fight strung after another.
By the same token, I don’t think I could handle a campaign with no combat - I’d go stir crazy at some point. But, by the same token I can’t stand a campaign that is one fight strung after another.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
My expectation for a D&D (5e) game is to have about 1/3 of the time spent in combat.
More than 1/2 (overall) would probably start to feel like a slog. If we're spending 2/3 of our time session after session in combat that would probably be too much for me.
I'd be hesitant to play anything under 20%.
I wouldn't play anything under 10%, at that point why are we playing D&D? I think that would be an excellent opportunity to play another game.
More than 1/2 (overall) would probably start to feel like a slog. If we're spending 2/3 of our time session after session in combat that would probably be too much for me.
I'd be hesitant to play anything under 20%.
I wouldn't play anything under 10%, at that point why are we playing D&D? I think that would be an excellent opportunity to play another game.
Geeknamese
Explorer
Nope...I’d play something on the FFG Genesys system instead.
Don Durito
Hero
I'm not sure what the baseline is supposed to be. Is one combat every two sessions low combat? (But then that depends on how long a session is?) .
Because my experience is a lot of campaigns go through periods like this unless I'm interrupting what the players are trying to do by throwing pointless combat at them for the hell of it. I certainly have never in 20 years felt any obligation to ensure that every session has combat.
But I wouldn't plan to have low combat - it's just if that players decide to hang around in town hob-knobbing and doing diplomacy that is likely to happen.
Quite often combat is more about giving me some breathing space than anything else.
I can't say I've ever had a player actually ask for more combat. (Well there was one guy - but he was a serious problem player).
To me it's not the frequency of combat that characterises D&D - it's that combat is usually what is central to the climaxes. It's all about some kind of arc or pacing.
Because my experience is a lot of campaigns go through periods like this unless I'm interrupting what the players are trying to do by throwing pointless combat at them for the hell of it. I certainly have never in 20 years felt any obligation to ensure that every session has combat.
But I wouldn't plan to have low combat - it's just if that players decide to hang around in town hob-knobbing and doing diplomacy that is likely to happen.
Quite often combat is more about giving me some breathing space than anything else.
I can't say I've ever had a player actually ask for more combat. (Well there was one guy - but he was a serious problem player).
To me it's not the frequency of combat that characterises D&D - it's that combat is usually what is central to the climaxes. It's all about some kind of arc or pacing.
Last edited:
Eltab
Lord of the Hidden Layer
I would not mind a combat-lite campaign (Dragon Heist could be done this way if you want to emphasize the people in the city, not the treasure hunt).
Zero-combat sounds like it will bog down into something where it is hard to address the villains / their plots, let alone defeat them.
Zero-combat sounds like it will bog down into something where it is hard to address the villains / their plots, let alone defeat them.
Similar Threads
- Poll
