No Combat

[Umbran]

The real thing to trip you up is this - players like drama and tension and stakes that are at least important to their characters, if not the game-world as a whole. In dramatic, tense, important times, it is rather likely that someone is going to try to use violence, eventually.

Now, you can give yourself a setup to make violence less common, but arbitrarily removing it entirely wil feel artificial, and hobble you dramatically speaking. You don't need dungeon crawls, you don't need armies of orcs. But to say that in a tense moment nobody will even throw a punch because of a "no combat" rule is darned silly.

So, the question you need to ask yourself (and perhaps the other players) is what kind of stories you can tell that have absolutely, positively no chance of including violence, and still be interesting to them. Get the player feedback on that question, and use that as a basis for your planning.

 

[S'mon]

I play in an all-Rogues campaign (PCs are Rogues w extra Feats & unrestricted class skills, NPCs can be Rogues or the DMG NPC classes, eg Warrior or Expert) set in an 18thc swashbuckling milieu which is very very low combat, but great fun - the last session had 0 fighting, but tons of skills-based and roleplay challenges. The campaign bears no relation to D&D dungeon-crawling of course, but the D&D skills ruleset works fine for this IME. Of course there's always the _threat_ of physical violence - it sounds like your player is sick of Monte Cook-style hack & slash modules, rather than demanding that there be no risk of harm to her PC.

That said, you could have a game that doesn't use the D&D combat mechanics - you could treat 'combat' as a skill just like Sleight of Hand; if violence ensued you'd roll opposed combat-skill checks for the participants, higher roll wins - they shoot/stab/KO the opponent; described appropriately by the GM.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'd agree with MMadsen - Call of Cthulu could be a good choice of system... I've not tried the D20 version yet, but it's meant to be good. I've played (published) campaigns where we've never really gotten into combat. When we have, it's a mark of failure and a sign that we've made a wrong turn and are probably going to get eaten by something with far too many tentacles.

If you're after something investigatory and/or intrigue-ish those could be a good model to work from?

Would probably work pretty well with the regular DnD ruleset... Some of the modules should convert nicely. Idle thought: If you like working from modules and enjoy conversion - "Horror on the Orient Express" module set on Eberron's railway.

Just keep with the type of plots, NPCs and all the pretty handouts.

I think this could be a lot of fun and very different from a normal campaign. Though, if you're really not keen on running it then I think you're dead right to get the player who suggested it to DM. IME, DM's running games they don't want to is a sure recipie for non-fun and will probably lead to 'burn out'.

 

[S'mon]

So, the question you need to ask yourself (and perhaps the other players) is what kind of stories you can tell that have absolutely, positively no chance of including violence, and still be interesting to them. Get the player feedback on that question, and use that as a basis for your planning.

This sounds like good advice - I'd suggest a guide would be the kind of real-world stuff you see on TV - Law & Order, LA Law, ER & such have plenty of drama with zero combat. Or film-noire detective stuff works well in RPGs.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've found that if the party has something in common other than gold and glory more RP encounters will open up. That means that the party itself needs to have 'character'. I once played in a campaign where all the characters played an instrument. We made songs and we went on tour; at the same time we had to save all towns our tour got to.

I once ran a campaign in Mystara where the focus-PC was an appointed judge by King Stephan of Karameikos. With him he had a cavalier champion who acted like a court of appeal. The players got to different places where they need to arbitrate different cases; it could be a feud between two families, bring a known rapist to justice, or any other beef NPCs can have with one another. The players would interview the people involved, and any witnessess. Then they'd discuss it amongst themselves and finally pass a verdict. If the verdict wasn't liked by a party they could fight in single combat aginst the champion, to have the verdict lifted. (This was especially good since the champion player wanted combat but the others couldn't care less.)

There are of course other things a party can have in common. Without dungeons and dragons you need a purpose. Otherwise the members of the party won't get a long or even stay in the same place long enough to have an actual game together.

 

[Henry]

If you do try it, were I you I would double-warn anyone playing a Fighter, Barbarian, or monk, as those three classes will likely feel VERY unfulfilled in this game. Rangers have enough side abilities and skills to not feel left out, but those three classes' SOLE purpose is armed (or unarmed) might, and will likely sit doing nothing but growling and acting menacingly for session after session.

 

[Just Anson]

The problem is simple. One of my players for an upcoming campaign has stated she simply doesn't want combat. None, zero. The other players think the idea is worth a shot. What in HADES DO I DO?

Polite society- that which inhabits the larger cities, for instance, and amongst the nobles when there isn't strife amongst them- might frown sternly on violence and combat. Build a campaign around this sub-setting, including political intrigue, mysteries, etc. You could even build in a failure condition for the PCs, if they screw up so badly that the people around them would resort to violence, you kill/retire the character and have the player create a new one.

'Normal' dungeon crawls are right out, and most published adventures as well (remember, a published adventure usually has to satisfy all kinds of players, including violent ones); horror-based catacombs-crawling might fit in neatly (especially if the PCs are too delicate for combat; they must rely on sneaking around quietly), and you can take quite a bit of inspiration from all kinds of movies.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Piratecat]

Heck, I'd love such a campaign, but I'd definitely play a bard or an expert.

I second the recommendations for Call of Cthulhu or Dying Earth. Both could easily make no-combat games because combat is so darn deadly. I think the non-d20 CoC would be best for this purpose.

 

[Indigo Veil]

I agree with aurance on this one, that it totally depends on your ability as a storyteller. I would also add that for the campaign as a whole to work, you and your players pretty much have to work together...if you have players who start playing with their cell phones when a plot driven, honest to god roleplaying opportunity comes up, there will be lots of irritation on all sides, and the campaign will be fun for no one. If you're getting rid of these people as players, and you're fairly confident in your skills as a narrative driven roleplayer, my opinion is that you're in good shape, and the toughest part is already behind you.

I should at this point share a little something: I -am- a player like the one you're talking about. I. Loathe. Extended. System based. Combat. Hate it, hate it, hate it. (I adore gritty, graphic violence, however, so long as it fits with the story...I have a feeling that your player is likely the same, though perhaps not nearly as fond of the violence as I am) Does that mean that I don't game at all? Hell, no. ^_^ Just for me, my GM tones down the visibility of the system we're using, and that goes a long way in minimizing my distaste for combat, and it can be hugely rewarding for all involved. (Queen of Shadows, linked below, was a solo campaign that my GM ran for me, and though it involves torture, BDSM, and other power play dynamics, involves only ONE instance of "combat," and it was maybe three seconds long.)

I can't really offer much in the way of resources (I leave that to my GM...I wuv him so! ^_^), but will attest to the fact that what your player is seeking -can- be done. ^_^

Good luck, and let us know what happens!

 

[starkad]

My worry is that you plainly stated you have at least one "combat monkey" in the group. If they truly actually pull out cell phones during non combat portions of the games, I'd be extremely wary of running, or even playing in, a no combat game with these folks. You're playing with fire if you force them to go non combat. Some people play the game simply for that, and from the sounds of it they're simply trying to humor the non combat person, or just to shut her up. Pardon the use of terms there, but it gets the point across (no offense was intended).

Speaking only for myself, I would refuse to run such a game. I'd lose half my rpg group as they love my tactical combat battles, and one even states he doesn't play D&D to think, he just wants to beat stuff up - he thinks too much working his three jobs.

As for suggestions on a system - I'd make her run it AND do the footwork on it. She wants it, you sound like you're balking at the idea, and the gut instinct is usually the most accurate one.