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

[Anoth]

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.

I can’t say this would be a case Of gatekeeping. It’s not what the game was created or designed for. And 99.999% of players want it, if not more. Is it a game. Yes. D&D, I think not. I would just read what the creators think about that if one disagrees. They made it. And I have read alot of what the game designers goals were over the years.

again still very curious of the adventure the OP has in mind.

i would like to know what is Not d&d with that type of thinking.

 

[Anoth]

typo

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the point is that for D&D, the expectation of combat is built in. And while the game can work perfectly fine without combat, if you were to remove it entirely, just about everyone here is in agreement that it should be made known ahead of time.

Mind you, we’re not talking about one session without combat, but an entire ongoing game.

If something is so fundamentally expected as part of the game that leaving it out means you have to tell people so that they are prepared.....well that seems pretty clear that people will view it as different, whether they like the change or hate it.

 

[Umbran]

Alright, but where do you draw the line?

Ask first WHY do you draw the line. What is the purpose of saying it is X or Y? Then we can discuss where.

"To be 'correct'," is not a functional answer.

 

[iserith]

Adding to my statement above that I would not play in a D&D 5e game without combat challenges, I would also not run one that lacks them either. This is a game about bold adventurers confronting deadly perils in worlds of sword and sorcery. It says so on the first page of the Introduction. So that's the kind of experience you'll get when you play in one of my games, one that involves all three pillars of play. You will not see even one session of my game that lacks combat.

 

[Anoth]

Ask first WHY do you draw the line. What is the purpose of saying it is X or Y? Then we can discuss where.

"To be 'correct'," is not a functional answer.

i think the purpose is so that people don’t sit down to play a game of rummy and they are actually playing poker. And then the person says you are gatekeeping when you say i am playing it wrong.
I wanna play A kryptonian and you are gatekeeping when you say I am playing it wrong. I want To use the force and fly the millenium falcon and you are gatekeeping when you say it’s not d&d and you don’t let me do what I want.

 

[uzirath]

But what about games with no combat? Just interested in the viewpoint.

It is difficult for me to imagine a game that wouldn't allow for the possibility of combat. Even if you take away all the weapons and whatnot, and everyone agrees to focus on roleplaying challenges, it's still possible that a character may throw a punch or toss a tankard of ale into someone's face.

In any event, I voted yes because it sounds intriguing. I agree that the system choice seems odd. As a frequent GURPS player, I would be scratching my head about why we weren't using a skill-based system. But I'd try it. Back in the old days, I played in a few AD&D campaigns that featured very little combat. There was often the threat of combat, but it rarely broke out.

 

[Anoth]

Something else to think about.

can you use the engine of d&d to not play d&d

can you use an engine that is not d&d to play d&d

what is the distinction? Are some people just using the words d&d to describe any rpg?

is asking these questions gatekeeping?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

if you were involved in a new D&D game and were aware up front it would NOT be a combat heavy game, or hardly any combat at all, but rather exploration and mystery and horror, would you still play? Assume you do not know the DM and he is not a friend, this is all 100% new.

More than likely not. I don't look to play D&D just to... not play D&D. Gatekeeping isn't a factor because my opinion on what D&D is/isn't doesn't stop anyone from playing unless I'm turning them away from playing in a game I'm running. What I want out of playing D&D most certainly is relevant. If the DM's intent is to deliberately eliminate combat as a major component of the game, AND I didn't know the DM, AND that DM hasn't done a high heap o' explainin' just how he expects the game to flow and how he's going to deal with all those D&D rules and class abilities and yada yada ALL oriented directly around combat...

Well, suffice to say that with the givens listed by the OP, much less the questioning void those givens leave me with as described, nope. Not interested.

Just tell me you're using a different game system that doesn't have half or better of its rules devoted to combat and I'll be as intrigued as anyone else.

 

[Ath-kethin]

My counter is that it isn't 5e if one of the pillars is missing.

Even for a session? The OP doesn't give a time frame.

You can play the game fine without endlessly murdering things. It even says so in the DMG!

. . . but I know, nobody reads the DMG.