D&D General Playing D&D without combat

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Let's phrase this with two lines of questioning:

-In some recent sessions I didn't put the players in a real combat encounter more than once, over the course of three sessions. In fact in one of them we didn't even crack out the map and minis.

Were we in some way not playing D&D? Was it not "truly 5E"? Does that amount of RP focused content sound appealing or unappealing? And lastly, have you ever tried this kind of play yourself?

-Is it even possible, or ever desirable, to play through a fairly long combat free stint of a campaign?

 

[Stormonu]

I’ve had sessions of D&D with no combat, it’s still D&D. However, if I were doing a long-term game that had no combats, I’d probably use a different system altogether.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My opinion is yes, you were playing D&D. Mainly because you were using the rules of D&D and not some other system. I myself do not have any issues with not having combats all the time and it will occasionally happen at my tables depending entirely on where the story is going at that moment in time.

That being said... as D&D's largest amount and most robust rules are for people and creatures fighting each other... it is expected by my group that combats will happen since that is what the game is geared towards. If we ever wanted to play a non-fighting game, I would use a setting and a system that did not have rules for combat (or at least rules not specifically written for combat.)

 

[Lyxen]

I play under a DM that runs few if any combats.

I really think that there are way more of us than people would expect.

 

[Iry]

Yes, you were absolutely playing 5E D&D.
Yes, you can play an entire campaign without a single combat and have tons of fun.
However, there are MUCH better game systems for this style of play.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Check out GURPS sometime. It has far and away some of the most elaborate rules on combat, and a hefty section along the order of 90+ pages in the Campaign book on running realistic battles, and operates in turns that are in 1 second increments. When you read the rules, you will think, "this is a combat gamer's dream." Then go find some GURPS groups (they are still around) and watch them play. Notice how incredibly rare it is to ever see combat in the games....and when you do see combat, it's all over the place, with some GMs incredibly relaxed about it with people just describing what they do and rolling some dice, on down to groups working meticulously in 1 second increments on elaborate hex maps. Yet....it is very clear they are all playing GURPS. D&D really is the same way. I do suggest that a shadow of 4E exists in 5E, in that it has disproportionate amounts of "combat relevant" bits strewn about and not enough non combat bits, but it all still works just fine for whatever way you want to play it, and does not support any single play style better than any other....even combat, which I would argue in 5E is more anemic and less interesting than all of its prior editions together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's phrase this with two lines of questioning:

-In some recent sessions I didn't put the players in a real combat encounter more than once, over the course of three sessions. In fact in one of them we didn't even crack out the map and minis.

IME that’s fairly normal, though usually different arcs call for different models of play.

Were we in some way not playing D&D? Was it not "truly 5E"? Does that amount of RP focused content sound appealing or unappealing? And lastly, have you ever tried this kind of play yourself?

It’s absolutely 5e D&D. My group often plays this way.

-Is it even possible, or ever desirable, to play through a fairly long combat free stint of a campaign?

Yes. Very. Our recent story arc had 2 fights over about 7 sessions, bookending the arc. Neither was central to the plot, but both drove character development.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Were we in some way not playing D&D? Was it not "truly 5E"? Does that amount of RP focused content sound appealing or unappealing? And lastly, have you ever tried this kind of play yourself?

We tend to refer to such sessions as playing, "Papers and Paychecks," after the old 1E DMG illustration. They usually involve PC's simply doing non-combat/non-adventure stuff like buying particular equipment, doing research, paying for information, planning, sorting through upkeep on their holdings and gear, or just having fun roleplaying extended conversations with interesting NPC's. If it is in any way actually considered, "Not Playing" by anyone (especially the rules), then they're doing it wrong. Now, sometimes those kind of sessions can be dull if you were looking forward to some ACTION. To be a good DM it helps to always have something up the sleeve to provide at least a little action for those who wanted it - but it's not a requirement.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Sure. You can do it.

SHOULD you do it? Also sure if you want.

BUT Is it the best idea? Yeah sure if it works for your group.

 

[Faolyn]

We've gone the last three sessions without combat, and the one before that had a minimal combat because we were trying to round up a pair of escaped pet sabertooths by knocking them out instead of harming them or any nearby people.

We did use plenty of dice rolls for various skills, since we're investigating a murder.

There's no wrong way to play D&D. If there's no combat, that's OK.

 

[cbwjm]

You can play without doing much combat, but with so much of your class geared towards combat, I do find it can get a little boring with extended periods without combat. Like others have said, if that was the sort of game we were signing up to play, I think a different system might be better.