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

[ad_hoc]

That seems a little extreme, and One True Way. How about you leave some space for people to play in ways you don't, hm?

The rules are a tool. Folks can use them lots of ways, and we shouldn't go branding them with "Not Our Game" just for that.

I didn't say they can't play any way that they want.

Just that if one of the pillars of the game is missing then it is no longer that game anymore.

At some point it is a different game. My criteria for that is based on personal expectation. If someone invites me to a game of 5e and when I sit down I feel duped then I consider that a different game.

I'm not sure what a game with no exploration would even be like, but to me, it wouldn't be 5e.

Surely you agree that at some point if you change it enough it becomes a different game right? Where we draw that line may differ. I like my criteria. I think the pillars are fundamental (why they are called pillars, they are the structure of the game).

 

[Salamandyr]

Probably not 5e...the other systems are too abstract to make it really fun-and too many options are provided the negate non-combat challenges. I've run a session of 5e that involved essentially no combat, and I pretty much had to invent new rules to do so.

But in another system, I'd be happy to.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say they can't play any way that they want.

Just that if one of the pillars of the game is missing then it is no longer that game anymore.

If the mashed potatoes are not there, it is still Thanksgiving dinner.

If someone loses a limb in an accident, they are still the same person.

This, "it isn't <Game X>," is gatekeeping language. You aren't appointed the gatekeeper of D&D. Saying that you wouldn't like playing that way is fine, but no one of us is the Arbiter of Proper Gaming D&D, to say what is D&D and what isn't, and doing so needlessly builds walls of value judgement between us.

Or, maybe you forgot the edition wars. Learn from prior mistakes, I say.

 

[generic]

If the mashed potatoes are not there, it is still Thanksgiving dinner.

If someone loses a limb in an accident, they are still the same person.

This "it isn't <Game X>" is gatekeeping language. You aren't appointed the gatekeeper of D&D.

In addition, the so-called "pillars" of the game are largely arbitrary, and the distinctions blend and mesh more often than the metaphor of the pillars would lead one to believe.

 

[Anoth]

But then you’ve essentially removed the system from the equation. If it’s pure freeform RP with no mechanics, then it’s not really D&D atWha

If the mashed potatoes are not there, it is still Thanksgiving dinner.

If someone loses a limb in an accident, they are still the same person.

This "it isn't <Game X>" is gatekeeping language. You aren't appointed the gatekeeper of D&D.

generally I agree with you. But this is an extreme case. It’s missing an entire pillar that has been a huge part of every edition. And I mean a gigantic huge part. So I wouldn’t call that gate keeping. This is more like playing monopoly without money. I doubt it would even qualify as a sword and sorcery game. An RPG yes

 

[ad_hoc]

If the mashed potatoes are not there, it is still Thanksgiving dinner.

If someone loses a limb in an accident, they are still the same person.

This, "it isn't <Game X>," is gatekeeping language. You aren't appointed the gatekeeper of D&D. Saying that you wouldn't like playing that way is fine, but no one of us is the Arbiter of Proper Gaming D&D, to say what is D&D and what isn't, and doing so needlessly builds walls of value judgement between us.

Or, maybe you forgot the edition wars. Learn from prior mistakes, I say.

At some point we aren't playing D&D anymore, we're playing chess.

If there is no food then it isn't Thanksgiving Dinner. If there are no people to eat the food then it isn't Thanksgiving Dinner. If it is June, then it isn't Thanksgiving Dinner.

If I was invited to Thanksgiving Dinner I'm fine with no potatoes, I'm not fine if there is no food or if I show up only to be told that it is actually in June.

 

[Umbran]

generally I agree with you. But this is an extreme case. It’s missing an entire pillar that has been a huge part of every edition. And I mean a gigantic huge part.

Yes. And I even questioned why one would use the system for the desired game. I don't think it is a good way to get the desired result, effectively making extra work, and all.

BUT (there's always a but) - I can imagine a fantasy novel. It has monsters and spellcasters and all the skills and all the things that signal "D&D" to me. But... no fight ever breaks out in the novel.

If one can write a story that screams "D&D!!!1!!!one!" to the reader, but just doesn't happen to have anyone getting stabbed with a sword... then we can play that story, too. And that story would still be fully flavorful D&D.

I argue that it is hard to do that well with the D&D engine. But, I don't deny that it could be done.

Unilaterally deciding what is, and is not D&D is gatekeeping. Sorry. You are putting up a barrier between Them and US, D&D and not-D&D. That is the very core of gatekeeping - setting up fences around things, and declaring who is in, and who is out. The fact that you feel it is warranted is beside the point.

 

[Prakriti]

This, "it isn't <Game X>," is gatekeeping language. You aren't appointed the gatekeeper of D&D. Saying that you wouldn't like playing that way is fine, but no one of us is the Arbiter of Proper Gaming D&D, to say what is D&D and what isn't, and doing so needlessly builds walls of value judgement between us.

Alright, but where do you draw the line?

Say you get invited over to play D&D at a friend's house. Once you sit down to play, the DM says he has a lot of house-rules.

He tosses out the PHB and says, "We won't need this."

He pulls out a chess board. He hands you a chess guide. For the next few hours, you take turns playing a game that is exactly like chess.

So what are you playing? D&D or chess?

 

[Umbran]

At some point we aren't playing D&D anymore, we're playing chess.

So...

Spoiler

Seems like that's okay in the boundaries of D&D.

You'd have an argument to make (though I'd state it differently) if the GM had not made it perfectly clear what they intended - calling it D&D without laying out the specific conceits for this game would set you up for failed expectations. But that's not the case here. The GM is up front with their game assumptions.

 

[ad_hoc]

So...

Spoiler

View attachment 117396

View attachment 117399

View attachment 117397

View attachment 117398

Seems like that's okay in the boundaries of D&D.

You'd have an argument to make (though I'd state it differently) if the GM had not made it perfectly clear what they intended - calling it D&D without laying out the specific conceits for this game would set you up for failed expectations. But that's not the case here. The GM is up front with their game assumptions.

We're getting into semantics now (which isn't usually helpful) but at that point I would say that it isn't 5e (my post said 5e btw not D&D in general) any more but a new game which takes a lot from 5e.

The point, I guess, is that at this point the distinction needs to be loud and clear.

"Hey, come play 5e for us, just to let you know we aren't focusing on combat in our game" would not be enough for example.

I think that's really all I'm saying. At some point when the game is changed enough then the onus is on the table to very clearly let people know that it won't be matching their expectations.

In the original thread that inspired this one the OP doesn't want to play 5e but will be advertising it to people because they believe that is the only way to get people to play. They said that they probably won't be reading the SRD (and they don't own any 5e books) as it is easy enough to just come up with a skill resolution system on the spot. They said they don't want to use classes or anything like that. And then there is the addition of no combat in the game at all which inspired this thread. If I sat down at such a table to play 5e I would feel lied to.

Here is the quote - Remember, they are advertising a "5e" game to people, not just "D&D".

So, is this gatekeeping to say that they are deceiving people by inviting them to a "5e D&D horror game with little combat"?

While I appreciate the book recs, I don’t intend to spend any money on D&D. After investing heavily on two editions and using so little of it, no thank you. The SRD exists if I absolutely need something. But I don’t see myself needing much once I figure out the range of target numbers the players can hit with rolls.

To answer specific questions, I don’t want to use prefens, players should have a degree of choice in who their character is, but I really want to avoid classes. I’ve not looked at the rules in a long time, but I can kit bash a thing. Basically “classes” that are little more than emphasize certain skills and saving throws. Your 3e NPC classes are more or less what I mean.

I figure I’m going to have to go with fantasy, as there’s no d20 modern equivalent, and I think getting too far away from even the very Idea of D&D is pushing it. Besides, I need all manner of supernatural/magical things, and it is easier for that to fit in a fantasy world.

So I wouldn’t have an issue with characters having access to a few cantrips or misc magical effects. I don’t know what spells are in 5e but some of your non combat spells are neat and would be nice to see them used.