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

[Tony Vargas]

Is there anyone who regularly plays several of BRP, DramaSystem, Gumshoe, D&D, Numenéra, Pendragon or Fate...

Possibly, but not many, I suspect, compared to sheer numbers of those who exclusively play D&D and are entirely unaware those other games even exist.

who would pick D&D for their non-combat game? It seems unlikely.

I have played Pendragon (like, in the 80s), BRP, FATE (when it was still all caps like that), and Gumshoe, but not regularly, like I have D&D for so many years.
And I would certainly choose Gumshoe to run a non-combat game, based on the relative qualities of the systems, alone.
If I could get any players.

 

[uzirath]

And in the case where to campaign only consists out of non-mechanical freeform roleplaying as D&D doesn't offer much not tied to combat, all the books are just dead weight.

Spellcasting seems like a pretty big subsystem that can be applied in tons of creative ways outside of combat.

I don't think D&D is the best system (or even a very good system) for a non-combat game, but I don't think you're lost in the wilderness if you try it. As others have pointed out, using two of the three pillars is still D&D.

 

[Derren]

Spellcasting seems like a pretty big subsystem that can be applied in tons of creative ways outside of combat.

I don't think D&D is the best system (or even a very good system) for a non-combat game, but I don't think you're lost in the wilderness if you try it. As others have pointed out, using two of the three pillars is still D&D.

Pillars which imo are very weak in D&D. The main focus, by a huge margin, of that system is combat.

Yes, there are also non combat spells, but not all classes have spells and you can bet that in a non combat game everyone would play a spellcaster as there is no reason not to.

 

[uzirath]

Yes, there are also non combat spells, but not all classes have spells and you can bet that in a non combat game everyone would play a spellcaster as there is no reason not to.

Yeah, I basically agree with all of this. D&D right out of the PHB would be an odd choice because the classes are so focused on combat options. I would rather play a game where you had a lot more mundane choices (diplomats, nobles, merchants, sailors, etc.) instead of trying to shoehorn such professions into the standard classes.

If we were required to use the basic classes, it might be fun if the entire party was composed of bards—a troupe of travelling troubadours.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, there are also non combat spells, but not all classes have spells

Not all sub-classes do. Of the classes you might think of as 'not casters,' the Fighter & Rogue have "1/3rd" caster subclasses, the EK & AT, the Totem Barbarian can do a few spells as rituals, and the Elemental & Shadow Monks can duplicate spells with Ki.

and you can bet that in a non combat game everyone would play a spellcaster as there is no reason not to.

There's not exactly a lot of reasons not to in a regularly-pillared or mostly-/all- combat game, either. It's just that Berserkers, Champs & BMs, Thieves & Assassin, and Open-Hand Monks are all about combat, so there's less reason /not/ to play them, if you really want to due to concept, say, or distaste for D&D's spellcasting mechanics, or whatever.