PDA

View Full Version : A game without combat.



Shinizak
2011-01-24, 12:52 AM
I've played 3.5 from day one, and for a while it was fun, before I decided to try different mediums like WoD, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, and more. But D&D is so combat focus that I found that it's become something I fall back to as a DM. Social situation not entertaining to the players? scoot them to the combat. Players annoyed with latest puzzle? scoot them to the combat. Combat boring the players? scoot them to a better combat. I tried out 4e's idea for "skill challenges" and that didn't work, and puzzles rarely cut it. After a while I've just gotten fed up with these huge DM no-nos, so what do you do to run a fun, challenging and rewarding game, with less combat?

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 01:06 AM
Less combat would mean more social interaction, and perhaps environment survival and exploration.

However, the meat of the game should still be social interaction, and you should rather find out what kind of social interaction they wish to play out.

Xyk
2011-01-24, 01:11 AM
Mysteries are often fun. Give many handfuls of tiny, seemingly useless clues. That makes players think.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-24, 01:20 AM
This is hard, but make some intriguing NPC's, both the likeable and the kind you love to hate kinds. Give them distinct mannerisms and possibly voices so that they instantly know that Sir Sebastian the Bastard has arrived.Give them things to care about, towns, families, friends, as well as people to hate, despise, want to seek revenge on, yet be protected by layers of law and custom.
I cant really help much but these are ideas I would use if I wanted to add non combat challenges and rewards.

qcbtnsrm
2011-01-24, 01:39 AM
One of the funnest games I ever played in had about one combat every 20 hours of real time played... usually resolved in less than 30 minutes. In this case the system was mutants and masterminds. The setting was teen supers. And 90% of the game revolved around the ever changing politics of high school.

The key I think was to break from the standard setting and rules. In our case combat was a last option. Most of us were not even slightly invulnerable. And every combat carried huge potential consequences. Beyond the standard death and dismemberment, a reveal of our secret ids would devastate our families. In one case family members would likely receive jail time if their kid was caught heroing. In others, job loss at least was likely. So anything that might leave us unconscious and/or unmasked by a paramedic and or officer was to be avoided at all costs.

Additionally the big bad villain was a true genius, and known to us. Every time we did something publicly, she made sure to point our mistakes. We quickly learned that a big confrontation was coming, and every combat was a reveal of our abilities. Very quickly we began to adapt a campaign of misdirection. So when the final conflict came, she wouldn't have been able to anticipate all our resources. Basically we were provided huge incentives to avoid combat, and potential huge drawbacks if we engaged in it. And as we were smarter than houseplants we caught on and joined in. Now this wouldn't have worked if there weren't lots of "side quests," personal goals and the like.

The big basketball game was a particularly fun session, with several interwoven plot lines. One PC was our star player, his primary goal was to carry the team without overtly revealing his supernatural physical abilities. In the mean time my PC was dedicated to advancing a whispering campaign to chip away at some of the social power the big bad was accumulating by isolating her from the cool kids (basically I was an influential member of the school heathers). At the same time a third PC was dedicated to foiling a presumed assassination plot by the school cheerleaders (who had become a hive mind) against Sarah (the most beautiful girl in the school). In the end the game was won, the big bad lost some social face (but not nearly enough), the assassination proved to be an attempt to date Sarah not kill her... but it was still foiled and I ended up on a study date with Sarah instead.

Rixx
2011-01-24, 01:39 AM
Create a new skill, "Combat", which is a Strength-based class skill for any class with a full Base Attack Bonus (or Medium BAB but no spellcasting). Weapon Finesse makes it Dex based.

Fights are decided by opposed Combat skill rolls. Include bonuses for masterwork/magic weapons, morale, situational / tactical advantages.

Suddenly, optimizing for combat becomes easy and also unfulfilling, and your players will quickly find more interesting things to do.

Temet Nosce
2011-01-24, 01:50 AM
To begin with, try to keep in mind the difference between what basically amounts to a non combat encounter, and simply listening to the DM. In some cases this may not matter (since most of the game is combat) but if you intend to run a game that isn't combat focused you'll need to adjust in a few ways.

First, try to arrange for there to be a player intention for whatever is going on. The character(s) should have a goal and be motivated to complete it, anything that gets RPed out should matter to them. Be careful to avoid going into detail on anything that doesn't involve the players attempting something (NPC info dumps, routine NPC chatter, etc).

Second, remember that things are liable to take longer and you're going to need to do your best to keep them moving at a good pace. Situations outside combat will frequently call for much more varied and thought out reactions than a turn would. Try to minimize the time your descriptions and responses to the player take. Anticipation is important.

Third, try to keep the party all engaged in the situation. In a non combat game it's bad to have only one person be the "face" if you're doing a lot of social stuff (ditto with the sneak if you're doing a lot of quiet activities).

Fourth, I'm unsure if this is specifically for D&D or not, but if not seriously consider running a different system than 3.5. Nobilis in particular suits this kind of game due to the suite of possible tools available to the average PC and the way the fluff encourages more subtle and careful conflicts.

Regardless though, make sure that the game retains a cool factor (good ideas include subtly encouraging the PCs to poison people, plant explosives, commit crimes and pin them on others, or magically enslave important NPCs).

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-24, 02:00 AM
In a number of games our local group's run, combat's been a very-minimal issue. During our Shadowrun game, our best missions occurred without so much as a shot being fired - in fact, we prided ourselves on it. And in our World of Darkness game as of late, combat's only sprung up a few times, and typically was brought to an end at a brutally-fast pace.

Gerbah
2011-01-24, 02:31 AM
I'm gonna go ahead against the grain here.

Combat is the meat and potatoes of D&D, and is and should be the primary focus. I realize that you may not be referring to D&D specific, and I can't speak for other systems, but minimal combat D&D scenarios are not only difficult to run and to keep the players interested in, it can also be very clunky and difficult to rationalize.

What I mean is, the skill checks, which are the bulk of non-combat related gaming, become more outrageous and impossible to fail as the players level up, as compared to the common man.

Then there is the issue if you don't want skill checks either, just a straight dialogue focused scenario, at which point you have to wonder whether or not you're actually playing a game.

I'm trying to keep this somewhat short and may not have spent all the time I could on those points but the gist of it is that combat should not just be cast aside, and heck making it too rare puts you in danger of boring the group (not a guarantee, it's just more difficult to keep people interested).

Ragitsu
2011-01-24, 02:33 AM
Is this a "male gamer" thing?

wayfare
2011-01-24, 02:39 AM
I think that combat is a huge part of D&D, but its not the whole shebang. Honestly, if you want a more socially oriented game, include NPCs who are not overtly evil. I often include npcs who are unlikable, but valuable to the PCs efforts. On other occasions, I introduce antagonists who are likable, even friendly, and it sets the PCs on their toes. They start considering other options, questioning their motives, interacting more deeply with their alignment.

Xefas
2011-01-24, 02:43 AM
Combat is the meat and potatoes of D&D, and is and should be the primary focus.

I actually agree with Gerbah here. Play to a system's strengths (used loosely in this case). D&D is very combat-focused, so if you play D&D, you should focus on combat. If you don't want to focus on combat, play a system that is focused elsewhere.

Basically, you have a hammer, and decided you didn't want to hammer nails anymore, so you're trying to use it as a paint roller. Can you paint with a hammer? Sorta. What should you do, instead? Grab a paint roller.

mint
2011-01-24, 02:44 AM
One of the funnest games I ever played in had about one combat every 20 hours of real time played... usually resolved in less than 30 minutes. In this case the system was mutants and masterminds. The setting was teen supers. And 90% of the game revolved around the ever changing politics of high school.

snip



My group is talking about running something similar. If you feel like it, it would help a lot if you could elaborate on the structure and contents of that game either here or in a PM.

NichG
2011-01-24, 03:20 AM
If you want to strip out or reduce combat it can be done, even in D&D, but you absolutely need to make lots of things to replace it. Combat is the meat and potatoes of D&D because there are so many things that interact in so many ways that there is no non-trivial optimum, so it involves thought, planning, reacting to changing situations, creativity, all sorts of things.

Simple skill checks do not.

Its hard to add something as mechanically complex as D&D combat to a game transparently to the players - there would just be too many things you'd need to show them in short time and teach them. You could do it opaquely, giving players only the minimum information they need to make contact with the system and then revealing more information with time or player experimentation. I've seen that used quite successfully and also used it. One game I'm in allows alchemical/metallurgical/spiritual/zymurgistic combinations to be tried during downtime, which have created all sorts of strange new things and often plot for us to solve that tends to be non-combat (e.g. a new material is made that absorbs all energy directed at it and uses it to self-replicate; how do you safely dispose of it or contain it?). The same game has used situations where the challenges were very abstract, and so were more challenging the mind than the characters' superpowers - things like 'here is a realm that pulls your expectations from your mind and shows them to you; figure out how to escape, and how to be sure you've actually made it out and are not in an illusion'.

On the other hand, the magic system has a lot of non-combat utility stuff that can be used to be the meat of a game without combat (though it leaves the fighter with nothing to do). Physical puzzles (get past this obstacle), mysteries, general situations (give this village a way to feed itself in self-sustaining fashion!), etc can be addressed by the mechanically rich set of spell effects and weird powers in D&D, so you could go in that direction as well.

Darrin
2011-01-24, 06:38 AM
After a while I've just gotten fed up with these huge DM no-nos, so what do you do to run a fun, challenging and rewarding game, with less combat?

Call of Cthulhu. If the PCs decide that combat is the best option, then something has gone horribly *WRONG*.

qcbtnsrm
2011-01-24, 10:25 PM
My group is talking about running something similar. If you feel like it, it would help a lot if you could elaborate on the structure and contents of that game either here or in a PM.

Sure why not. The setting was the Mutants and Masterminds default setting. We even had to chase some of the real heroes for help and advice on at least one occasion. But for the most part the campaign was set in a small fictional town about 100 miles north of NYC. This fictional town was very high class and largely consisted of billionaire estates. The "country homes" of the NYC elite. As such the school was top notch despite being public. So anyone who could, by hook or crook, found a way to place their kids in the school district.
PC 1 was the heir to a huge electronics magnate (think Bill Gates' kid). He was a gadgeteer.
PC 2 was the son of some live in domestic staff. He was also part of the domestic staff. He had a bonded genie.
PC 3 was the son of the town sheriff. He was a brick/brawler.
PC 4 (me) was the daughter of a Wonder Woman knock off in disguise. And was in field training for my destined role as ambassador to man's world.

Because of the setting, supers tended to be rich, powerful and influential but not public. Because of the absurdly good schools, they tended to raise their children in our town. At least that was the theory. I expect there were other causes as well. A hellmouth? Some sort of sinister group funneling "special" children through the school? Unusual fluoridation in the water? All of the above? We never found out for certain. But regardless we knew there were other supers in the school and were able to identify several of them. But most of the kids were normal.

Most adventures revolved around the strong personalities of the PCs, the incidental side effects of several NPC's powers, the big bad's attempts to get her way on various things, or the actions of our individual nemeses.

Here are some specific "adventures":

My PC had a rival who was passed over for the role of ambassador in training. So she followed me to this town and enrolled into the school. She was a constant pain in my back. Anything she could do to cause me to fail, without being too obvious, she did in an attempt to prove me too weak for the role. Given that I was very driven and had a list of goals to complete there were constant opportunities for her to trip me up. Thus things like the race for freshman class president had some huge potential consequences. Neither of the two of us ran, but getting my candidate the win proved my superiority in the eyes of my government.

There was a girl, Sarah, who gave off sex pheromones. Basically half the student body was a willing slave to her, much to her dismay. She really didn't want it and took huge steps to mitigate it. But none the less she was the social center of the school, from the moment she walked in. We had to stop more than one kidnapping attempt. And the rivalry for her hand included most of the students, half the PCs, the big bad, and the cheerleader hive mind.

Speaking of which there was an alien hive intelligence which first manifested at summer cheerleader camp, quickly subsuming the freshmen cheerleader squad. But the hive mind fell for Sarah. Poor thing, it didn't know how to deal with super power augmented teenage human hormones. We were able to use Sarah to convince it that it stood the best chance with her if it limited itself the bodies it had already consumed. But they remained a wild card, you never knew what that alien intelligence would do next to try and impress Sarah.

Buffy and Smallville were both highly inspirational. Anything that worked in either of those was fair play. All in all it was a great deal of fun. But I've rambled on for a bit. If you have a specific question, let me know. I'll try to answer as well as I am able.

valadil
2011-01-24, 11:51 PM
I've never done a campaign without combat, but I've done several sessions. If I put enough interesting plot and NPCs into the game, the players direct the session away from fights and towards the plot. It's all a matter of making sure that your plot is more interesting than your combat.

Okay, that's not entirely true. A lot of it is about having the right group. IMO the way social games should work is with social interaction between the players. For this to happen you need to have talkative players. And they need to have talkative characters. Their characters should have different opinions and backgrounds, rather than treating the group as a single unit.

For getting the PCs talking, I've had the best luck by letting them plan. Give them a situation to deal with and let them sort out how to handle it. To keep them talking for longer, run several plots at once. Then when you give out a clue they won't know which plot to apply it to. Figuring out not just where the piece fits in the puzzle, but which puzzle they're working with will give the PCs plenty to discuss.

I also recommend attacking their moralities. You shouldn't turn the players against each other necessarily. But find their differences and give them a question that relies on those differences so that PCs come up with separate answers to reconcile. Unlike the last paragraph this will require some work from your players. They have to have character and care enough about preserving that character, rather than just going with the flow.

Earthwalker
2011-01-25, 03:45 AM
I think I will reitterate what people have said.
DnD is a system designed around combat. Removing that will need something big to replace it.
In DnD the skill system is weak and the magic system is proably too powerful (in terms of automatically succeeding)

The most success I have had with reducing the amount of combat is in systems like Shadowrun and Runequest, systems where combat can be deadly and is avoided (this is all dependant n the GM of course).

My advice if you are playing DnD none combat is -

Make sure your players have some idea up front you are not playing standard DnD.

Make the characters something other then adventurers (my current Pathfinder game the characters are city based EMTs for example)

Add some more complications to the skill system (I have added a system where to pass a test multiple succeses are needed and can be rolled if you beat the DC by enoug. This allows for partial success and partial failures)

Maybe look into removing some of the automatic success from magic. (e.g. Knock now gives the player a open lock skill = to his spell craft for caster level minuets)


Of course the most important thing is to make sure the players know what you are expecting.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-25, 04:25 AM
But D&D is so combat focus that I found that it's become something I fall back to as a DM.
Well, yes. D&D (and in particular 4E) is really not a very good choice for a campaign that is not combat-heavy. I'd suggest you pick a ruleset where combat causes you to die, such as Cyberpunk or particularly Call of Chthulhu, so that players have an incentive to try other options.

Also, google up "A Tale In The Desert" - it's a MMORPG that has no combat. It can give you some interesting ideas on the topic.

And yes, you can write lots of plot based on social interaction and mystery. It starts by making a few memorable NPCs that have conflicting goals, and let them try to persuade the PCs. Make it very clear that there is no "right" solution here, and let debate ensue. This works well with sandbox campaigns, too.

NichG
2011-01-25, 05:02 AM
Add some more complications to the skill system (I have added a system where to pass a test multiple succeses are needed and can be rolled if you beat the DC by enoug. This allows for partial success and partial failures)


So this brings up a bit of a side thing. It's possible to make something mechanically more variable or complicated without introducing new options from the character point of view. It becomes a bit of a minigame for the players that is totally invisible to the characters (i.e. do I try for a high success or a low success, ...)

I think the thing to aim for is to have things that can be done to interact with the world and let the complexity fall out of that. That's what makes D&D combat continue to be interesting even after years of play - you can keep discovering new wrinkles and interactions.

Easier said than done I suppose, but lets say we start with an abstract social mechanic and go from there as an example:

Characters have the usual saves, etc. However, there are now new classes that correspond to different kinds of social interaction: Prima Donna, Gossip, Invisible, Schemer, Authority. Their class features then allow for certain things to be done.

The Prima Donna gets Draw Attention, which causes the actions of others to be observed less and their own observed more. They can Show Favor, which makes others jealous of the target of the ability. They can Seduce, and so on.

The Gossip can pull information about others from the social environment (like divinations), and can create false information and spread rumors.

The Invisible is beneath notice - a servant, someone who is just nondescript. Their own actions are hidden, and so they can do the dirty work and still remain part of society.

The Schemer makes plans, manipulates others subtly with private meetings, but is impassive and aloof in public. They can create Contingencies, which protect against surprises. With sufficient knowledge they can Predict what others will do, and thus Manipulate them.

The Authority gathers power or other things of desire. They can acquire things others want, determine their desires, command armies of servants, ... You might want to break up what sorts of resources they have - political, economic, land, status (which could be different than political), magical (in settings where such things are relevant), ...

Put some more concrete mechanics behind those things, and how NPCs interact. Flavor with flaws and traits, hubrises and virtues, and you have a rich system that will probably have unexpected interactions leading to complex and satisfying play.

Hanuman
2011-01-25, 05:55 AM
I've played 3.5 from day one, and for a while it was fun, before I decided to try different mediums like WoD, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, and more. But D&D is so combat focus that I found that it's become something I fall back to as a DM. Social situation not entertaining to the players? scoot them to the combat. Players annoyed with latest puzzle? scoot them to the combat. Combat boring the players? scoot them to a better combat. I tried out 4e's idea for "skill challenges" and that didn't work, and puzzles rarely cut it. After a while I've just gotten fed up with these huge DM no-nos, so what do you do to run a fun, challenging and rewarding game, with less combat?
The problem is really that most POWERS are combat oriented.

Players don't necessarily want combat, they want interesting uses for their powers.

S'why wizards are my favorite, more powers.

Prime32
2011-01-25, 07:57 AM
Never played it, but Josh of the BGs really loves Burning Wheel and recommends it for this all the time. From what I've seen, it makes conversations between characters as varied and strategic as D&D combat. And your stats cover everything you've experienced since birth to influence the ways you perceive the world.

Totally Guy
2011-01-25, 08:25 AM
Never played it, but Josh of the BGs really loves Burning Wheel and recommends it for this all the time.

Who are the BGs?

Edit: Lost my post...:smallmad:

Amphetryon
2011-01-25, 08:30 AM
Other systems model what you want better than D&D, because D&D has tabletop wargames as its genesis point. Something like Prime Time Adventures, Burning Wheel, or (Oracle_Hunter's favorite) Bliss Stage would probably model what you want better than trying to hammer D&D into a new shape.

DarkEternal
2011-01-25, 10:47 AM
There is a pretty good, high level(level 18 I think) published adventure in Dragon Magazine called Diplomacy. Basically, you have to use your social skills in the game to win over a contract to some celestial mine so it wouldn't be sold to psychopaths.

It's got combat, sure, but a really low amount of them. I think two or three encounters in the entire adventure, and that is near the very end of it. It's pretty good.


Also, I agree, roleplaying and social interaction should be the most important part of the game, with combat to spice things up.

Pisha
2011-01-25, 10:53 AM
If I'm reading you right, you're not necessarily wanting to remove all combat from your game (if you were, then yeah - I'd suggest playing something other than D&D), you're just wanting to give your players something to be interested in OTHER than combat. *Am I right?

This is do-able. *The game I currently play in, while it's certainly not lacking in combat, has plenty of focus in social, political, and problem-solving areas.

One thing you can do is seed the landscape with interesting little "hooks" - things that are not really plot-specific (as far as the players can tell, at least) but which are interesting, and fun to interact with, and may become useful later. *Our GM told me once that every time we walk through a market, explore abandoned ruins, save a small town, anything, there are at least a couple weird items and/or NPCs lying around. *If we don't find them, no big deal. *If we do, though, then we have a whole new storyline to mess around with. *To use a few examples from our campaign: a small child who is the only survivor of a destroyed town, a kitchen full of enchanted silver, a gnome selling carriage insurance (who somehow manages to show up in every town we go to), a magical item with an interesting but ultimately useless function, or a slave being sold in a market can all lead to non-combat interactions that enrich the game. The idea here is not to have a plan in mind of how these items are going to come into play. Just put some creative things out there, and be prepared to roll with whatever your players come up with.

Another thing is to present them with situations where combat is not the only option, or not even a good option - and then make sure they understand what options they have. If your players attempt to strike a deal, or negotiate, or sneak past their antagonists, and they get slapped down every time, they're not going to try it very often. But if they attempt a non-combat response and you encourage it and play along (even if they're not very good at it at first - it takes practice!), they'll feel like they can try that more often. (If your group is used to a straight combat game, you may need to help it along the first time by presenting the idea to one of your players. Get him aside and mention, "Y'know, if that goblin camp is as well-defended as everyone says, they might make a valuable ally to this town if someone tried to work out a peace treaty instead of attacking them." Heavy-handed, maybe, but you gotta get the ball rolling somehow.)

Finally, while you still want some combat, you can work it so that the combat enhances the game rather than being the main focus. Fending off a dragon attack? Cool. Fending off a dragon attack that's aimed at the very elven ambassador you've been wining and dining all night, and knowing that killing the dragon will win you the gratitude you need to get him to agree to help you? Cooler. Your players will still remember the combat, but they're also going to remember why the combat mattered.

randomhero00
2011-01-25, 11:29 AM
Having a light combat game requires both good players and a good DM. Its equally the players responsibility to roleplay and enrich the story as it is the DM's.

grimbold
2011-01-25, 03:51 PM
i currently am in a very low combat campaign
as in one small encounter a session
i am not fond of it as i am playing a barbarian
but the puzzles and traps are fun

Shinizak
2011-01-28, 10:05 PM
What should a plot of a low combat system look like? I'm throwing around an idea of a political battle between a group of 12 kings & queens, and a new rising empire with lots of gray and gray morality thrown in. (based on the roman to christian power shift)

or a nice and simple collect the power crystals quest. (simple and easy adventuring which can be dropped into another idea easily.