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

[abirdcall]

I wish there was a HELL YES! option in the poll.

"BuT tHaT's NoT d&D!!1?!" comes the frequent chorus from the woodwork. But I don't see why not, especially as the game now explicitly runs on three distinct pillars, only one of which involves stabbing things.

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

 

[ChaosOS]

I voted no, in part because the "Maybe" option is a cop-out. If you're running combatless D&D, why D&D? Why not any other system that actually handles what you want to do well? The D&D community does way too much of square pegs in round holes.

Also, I think it's funny some people treat all three pillars as equal, when Exploration is notoriously half-baked and the social pillar mostly gets by through allowing improv RP.

 

[Don Durito]

You are preaching to the wrong guy. I do not need to think about it.
I'm the player who comes up with a concept for a character (not just a bunch of powers & bonuses), then uses the rules to optimize for that. Simply looking for the most bang for my buck rules wise & then molding things around that is not how I make my characters. Hasn't been for nearly 30 years & has been working just fine for me across 4 editions + PF.
So, if I feel that what I'm envisioning would A) fit the campaign, B) be fun to play, C) be best represented as some sort Fighter or Paladin, or monk or barbarian or whatever? Then regardless of the amount of expected combat, or the rules (dis)advantages(?), then that's what I'd make the character as. How they lv up during play will be influenced by both concept & how the story is developing. It will not be based upon "Ooh, if I MC to X at lv._ I'll gain __."

You're missing the point.

"Grizzled veteran soldier who did his time in the Orcs Wars, and now just wants to run his tavern in peace", is represented differently in a game in which there is zero combat. You don't need anything mechanical at all to represent his Fighting ability - because it's not going to be coming up in the game. He will literally never be fighting anyone ever (that's what zero combat means). So how would you realise this character in a D&D game with no combat? Well, I would probably imagine he would be very intimidating, scars, from the war, a big build - let's say I'm not trying to optimise and put points in Strength and Con to represent that he's a big guy (because while abilities don't see a lot of use out of combat they do still mean something). But what we're left with is that the point at which this whole history of violence interacts with the game engine is through the Intimidate skill.

This skill now has to carry a lot of weight (because I can't demonstrate my characters history as a grizzled veteran by just kicking butt.) So I want to make sure I'm damn good at it.

 

[Anoth]

You're missing the point.

"Grizzled veteran soldier who did his time in the Orcs Wars, and now just wants to run his tavern in peace", is represented differently in a game in which there is zero combat. You don't need anything mechanical at all to represent his Fighting ability - because it's not going to be coming up in the game. He will literally never be fighting anyone ever (that's what zero combat means). So how would you realise this character in a D&D game with no combat? Well, I would probably imagine he would be very intimidating, scars, from the war, a big build - let's say I'm not trying to optimise and put points in Strength and Con to represent that he's a big guy (because while abilities don't see a lot of use out of combat they do still mean something). But what we're left with is that the point at which this whole history of violence interacts with the game engine is through the Intimidate skill.

This skill now has to carry a lot of weight (because I can't demonstrate my characters history as a grizzled veteran by just kicking butt.) So I want to make sure I'm damn good at it.

that where I wonder what Kind of game this is. Because I can play session after session without combat. But there is always the threat of combat and it could happen and it would be dangerous. I played alot of sessions of Cthulhu without combat. But the threat was very much there.

 

[Don Durito]

that where I wonder what Kind of game this is. Because I can play session after session without combat. But there is always the threat of combat and it could happen and it would be dangerous. I e played alot of sessions of Cthulhu without combat. But the threat was very much there.

Well yes as I said before. That's a different situation.

Even if they seem similar, it's a very different situation entirely. Having abilities that your fit character that you know will rarely see use, is different to abilities that don't see any use ever.

The thread is somewhat confused, because it's asks one question but then can't make up it's mind whether it actually wants to asks a very different question.

In D&D combat has weight. Even if you average one combat in 10 sessions of game play it has weight. It informs the kind of archetypes that players want to create, it involves a literally life and death situation, and it's means of resolution lend it dramatic weight. You may have lots of fun playing your Barbarian as a backward yokel stumbling around town trying to fit in and getting swindled - but you know sooner or later he's going to flip out and pound someone because that's pretty much something that defines the character.

It's like the pulp era western. They basically created (unless this is an urban myth) the long drawn out build up to the gun fight because they were being paid by the word. So you don't have the gunfight for as long as you can, as long everyone's enjoying the story, but sooner or later, you have to arrive there.

As I said before, D&D with no combat is a very strange beast. So much so, that it's hard to even know how to think about it without a specific premise in mind - why would combat be absolutely and completely off the table? Given that PCs have so many ways to resolve problems via violence what strictures would be put in place to ensure that doesn't actually happen ever?

 

[Matthew Perkins]

I've heard some opinions on mass combat or naval battle systems in D&D where they get shot down because it feels like placing a weird mini-cam, a whole nother game system in D&D. But that's how I feel about combat — it's a kind of minigame.

 

[Lanefan]

"Grizzled veteran soldier who did his time in the Orcs Wars, and now just wants to run his tavern in peace", is represented differently in a game in which there is zero combat. You don't need anything mechanical at all to represent his Fighting ability - because it's not going to be coming up in the game. He will literally never be fighting anyone ever (that's what zero combat means). So how would you realise this character in a D&D game with no combat? Well, I would probably imagine he would be very intimidating, scars, from the war, a big build - let's say I'm not trying to optimise and put points in Strength and Con to represent that he's a big guy (because while abilities don't see a lot of use out of combat they do still mean something). But what we're left with is that the point at which this whole history of violence interacts with the game engine is through the Intimidate skill.

Step back from the mechanics and ask what you could do with a character like this in a pacifist game.

Our veteran might not fight any more - maybe explained by his having taken a vow of peace after some incident or other in the past, and renounced his Fighter skills - but he can tell war stories till the end of time, some of which might hold relevance to (or allegory of) the party's current situation.

He can look at someone for five minutes and size up whether that person could be trained to fight e.g. in an arena; and maybe also gain an idea of that person's level of courage.

He's seen (and probably served under) good commanders and bad ones, knows the difference between them and knows what made them good or bad. He's also served with good companions and bad, ditto.

He's probably travelled a fair bit of the realm via marching up and down across it and thus has more on-the-ground knowledge of the rural folk and how they think/operate than any pure city dweller (or noble!) ever would.

I could go on - and on, and on - but you get the idea, hm?

All you-as-player need to do is a) get your DM's permission then b) before play starts* make up this guy's service history - what units/legions/armies he was in; who his commanders/superiors were and a three-word note for each e.g. "stern, fair, aloof", "weak, indecisive, cheerful", etc.; what (if any) action he saw; where he went during his tour(s) of duty, and maybe anything else he might have done during his downtimes.

Then you can spend the whole campaign mining the hell out of all this for your war stories.

* - or very shortly after, once you-as-player have had a chance to look over whatever setting the DM's using.

 

[Don Durito]

Step back from the mechanics and ask what you could do with a character like this in a pacifist game.

Our veteran might not fight any more - maybe explained by his having taken a vow of peace after some incident or other in the past, and renounced his Fighter skills - but he can tell war stories till the end of time, some of which might hold relevance to (or allegory of) the party's current situation.

He can look at someone for five minutes and size up whether that person could be trained to fight e.g. in an arena; and maybe also gain an idea of that person's level of courage.

He's seen (and probably served under) good commanders and bad ones, knows the difference between them and knows what made them good or bad. He's also served with good companions and bad, ditto.

He's probably travelled a fair bit of the realm via marching up and down across it and thus has more on-the-ground knowledge of the rural folk and how they think/operate than any pure city dweller (or noble!) ever would.

I could go on - and on, and on - but you get the idea, hm?

No. What's your point?

If you ditch 5E's skill system and use something like 13th Age backgrounds you can even make this work as part of the game system (although you still wouldn't have to take the Fighter class to do so - but in 13th Age you might as well as there's not really a skill monkey class).

But if' you're actually drawing on having the actual Fighter class in 5e to do this than you're making up houserules.

5E works better in any case if you change the proficiency system to work this way. (Even if you don't go as loosey goosey about it as 13th Age games often do) precisely because it gives you a way to operationalise all the things you just suggested.

 

[Lanefan]

No. What's your point?

If you ditch 5E's skill system

...which is probably a good idea regardless, but not at all what I'm getting at here...

and use something like 13th Age backgrounds you can even make this work as part of the game system (although you still wouldn't have to take the Fighter class to do so - but in 13th Age you might as well as there's not really a skill monkey class).

But if' you're actually drawing on having the actual Fighter class in 5e to do this than you're making up houserules.

How in the 19 hells am I making up any houserules here?

It's called non-mechanical freeform roleplaying, backed up if needs must by at most one or two existing skills (e.g. Perception), and it can be done every bit as well in 5e as it can in any other RPG.

5E works better in any case if you change the proficiency system to work this way. (Even if you don't go as loosey goosey about it as 13th Age games often do) precisely because it gives you a way to operationalise all the things you just suggested.

Again I think you're missing my point: none of this has to be mechanically operationalised in order to work at the table.

Make up your character, roleplay the bejeesus out of it, and if the mechanics get in the way of that roleplaying - which they don't in any edition of D&D unless the DM forces them to - then push them aside. (that said, if you've got one of those DMs who doesn't like players making unimportant stuff* up either on the fly or ahead of time, then you have a problem I can't solve)

* - such as detailed character history/backstory that you can later mine for roleplaying ideas.

Put another way - in this example you're not playing the Fighter for his mechanics now, you're playing him to draw on his memories from his soldiering past. He's a Fighter now only because if he had to he could remember how to pick up a weapon and use it...and because after his soldiering days he never learned any other class.

 

[Don Durito]

...which is probably a good idea regardless, but not at all what I'm getting at here...How in the 19 hells am I making up any houserules here?

It's called non-mechanical freeform roleplaying, backed up if needs must by at most one or two existing skills (e.g. Perception), and it can be done every bit as well in 5e as it can in any other RPG.

Again I think you're missing my point: none of this has to be mechanically operationalised in order to work at the table.

Make up your character, roleplay the bejeesus out of it, and if the mechanics get in the way of that roleplaying - which they don't in any edition of D&D unless the DM forces them to - then push them aside. (that said, if you've got one of those DMs who doesn't like players making unimportant stuff* up either on the fly or ahead of time, then you have a problem I can't solve)

* - such as detailed character history/backstory that you can later mine for roleplaying ideas.

Put another way - in this example you're not playing the Fighter for his mechanics now, you're playing him to draw on his memories from his soldiering past. He's a Fighter now only because if he had to he could remember how to pick up a weapon and use it...and because after his soldiering days he never learned any other class.

Well if the actual class is contributing nothing than we are going in circles. Why not just play a rogue with the Soldier background? Then you can have all of the benefits you suggest plus more skill points and expertise.

If you have a choice between A and B - and the difference is that B effectively covers everything that A covers but a also bit more - than of course the rational choice is B.

It's like if I have a character concept where my character is a crashed pilot from an intergalactic space ship. The GM agrees that the PC is fine but warns it will mostly be colour for me to play as he doesn't intend for the game to ever go into space or for modern technology to feature. It would then be a bit strange for me to ask him if instead of taking adventuring skills like Perception or Persuasion I could spend my skill picks on Piloting (intergalactic spacecraft) and Quantum Computer Engineering.