My daughter doesn't like combat..what's 4e got left?

[occam]

I started playing D&D with my 8-year-old daughter last year (before her birthday, when she was 6). Her (now) 5-year-old sister likes to join in. In addition to simplifying the rules, I tried to steer more toward investigation and interaction. When it comes to combat, try using monsters that you don't feel as bad killing: constructs, vermin, plants, oozes, and elementals work great; also things like carrion crawlers, cloakers, mimics, ankhegs, darkmantles, ropers, stirges, etc. Basically, the more inhuman, the better. I stayed away from undead, that gets into a weird philosophical area.

I also plan on some Marvel Super Heroes -- no one dies unless something very wrong happens.

 

[LostSoul]

In that case, I'd suggest starting them with a game that reflects television shows or movies they may have watched. It will allow you to refer them to "just like in X", when trying to describe something in game.

If that's what you want, Prime Time Adventures is your game.

 

[Emirikol]

Castle amber

I just ran my daughters through X2 CASTLE AMBER. What a sweet adventure for kids. I cut out most of the killing and made it a bit more interactive (except for bugs of course). The girls were laughing so hard at the ogre in the nighty it was contagious.

We used a d20 and a d12 (to track "hits").

Worked wonderfully.

jh

 

[CleverNickName]

My suggestion would to NOT go with 4E. It is a very tactical and strategic game where most of the focus has been put on creating dramatic and intense action (most often provided through combat).

For games less focused on adrenalinepumping action (lets murder people), I would suggest True20. It is an extremely flexible game system that can cover anything from fantasy to sci-fi and horror.

This.

I'd also like to mention one of my favorite adventures of all time: X2, Castle Amber. It uses the old Basic and Expert rules, and is chock-full of intrigue, mystery, and storytelling goodness. Highly recommended.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

4E is "combat heavy" in the rules-explanation of the player's handbook, it is true. Indeed, it goes to great lengths to explain the details of the combat rules, because it has taken great pains to create a tactical miniatures game out of the combat system.

What they've done for the non-combat system is return to the very old-school idea of roleplaying minus a mechanic.

Instead of having your storytelling be restricted by a game mechanic, the non-combat portion of the game is very loosely structured around the skill system. The DMG explains about skill tests, and some other non-combat types of encounters.

But mostly it is a return to the original AD&D style of roleplaying, where the game mechanics themselves are concerned about the combat but the actual rules don't concern themselves with the non-combat aspects of storytelling. You've got just enough of a loose system of skills to control the action, but mostly what you've got left is the classic social contract between the GM and the players, working together to tell a good story together.

It is no longer about formulas, sheets of rules, and metagaming the non-combat portion of the game. It is about as old-school as you can get.

Or, as liberating as you can get! (they really do go to great pains to explain how they've adopted the "just say yes to players' ideas" mentality).

That is why there are not page after page of rules in the DMG. They've done away with them. They've got explanations, and suggestions, and advice, but not rules and mechanics and things that are going to bind you up, tie your hands, and hold you down.

So what's left if your daughter doesn't like combat?

Everything! Whatever the two of you can come up with! Whatever she can create! Whatever she wants, you can facilitate!

And thankfully, you won't be restricted by an overly cumbersome set of non-combat storytelling rules that keep telling her what she *can't* do, instead of encouraging her to explore the limits of what she *can* do in your shared world.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D is very geared toward combat. You can do other stuff, but sooner or later you're "supposed" to fight things.

You'd be better off playing a less combat-focused game.

True Blue Rose, I hear it's pretty dynamite.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I also must agree with the people who say D&D is mostly about combat. If you don't want to fight; D&D isn't the game for you.

Another system you may consider is "Spirit of the Century."

 

[Herobizkit]

I second Blue Rose. That rulebook (and system) is just plain awesome. The fluff for the pre-made campaign world is extremely "good with just a bit of evil" that focuses on the human element of story-telling instead of how many gobs of d6s a player can throw. I have yet to run it, but I will, someday.

That said, the Zelda comment another poster made earlier is also perfect. Keep the "killing" to puffs of smoke and/or "swoons" for human opponents; keep the bad guys clearly inhuman (including vermin and animals).

Also, the main heroes of the story can't do a lot without a strong supporting cast. Make their friends and allies appear often; allow the players to describe to you what kind of people they would like as friends.

 

[GSHamster]

Play up the "Protector" angle more than the "Killer" aspect.

Maybe make problems a little more open-ended. If a village is being threatened by a tribe of goblins, have the players be able to interact with the goblins and maybe reach a non-violent solution. Don't have the goblins automatically attack.

Also, I suggest reading some of Tamora Pierce's books.

 

[buzz]

I would run The Shadow of Yesterday.

This.

You can even get a "generic" version of it ("Solar System") for $5. The rules are also available for free on the interweb.

The same author also wrote a game specifically for kids called The Princes' Kingdom.

And there's always The Pool.

But it looks like you already decided what you were going to do, so good luck.