Haven't had combat in months

[weckar]

So, I'm not sure if this is one of those problems that isn't, but in short terms: I've been DMing a weekly group for about 7 months now, yet for the last two we have not had any combat.

There have been opportunities, but the characters (and players) often found it not worth it, too risky or simply saw no need for it. Often they snuck around, talked around, or pursued some other avenue.

Now, normally this would not concern me, but D&D is primarily a combat game. I feel I may not be engaging my players enough, or not presenting them with the right challenges.

What strategies could I employ to remedy this, if it indeed needs a remedy?

[legomaster00156]

Is your party enjoying the game? Are you still rewarding them for overcoming challenges in non-combat ways? If yes to both, then nothing needs to change.

[False God]

Do you find yourself saying "well, sorry this week's game was only an hour long, but I had like, 16 combats planned out for you and you skipped them all"?

Or does the lack of combat have very little impact on your game other than your internal concern that you're not engaging your party enough?

Personally, I'm a fan of few, but meaningful encounters. But I hate that so many DMs refuse to reward equitable XP for anything other than killing monsters. Save the entire kingdom? 1 XP. Kill a dozen monsters? ELEVENTY-BAZILLION XP!!!!

Some games, and some parties, just don't need a lot of combat.

[pabelfly]

You could give them someone they really hate and they want to get into a fight with. Have someone try to steal their stuff, mess with (or even kill) NPCs they like, get treasure they were after first, mock or belittle their characters, that sort of thing. I'm sure you can come up with more ideas to try and instigate a fight with your players that are setting and story appropriate.

[Psyren]

Is your party enjoying the game? Are you still rewarding them for overcoming challenges in non-combat ways? If yes to both, then nothing needs to change.

I'd add to this though that you should be having fun too. If you're designing fun combat encounters and your players keep going around them all, leaving you bored/frustrated, a conversation might be in order.

[BWR]

The most important question in any game is: Are people having fun?
If the answer is 'yes', then you are Doing It Right.


, but D&D is primarily a combat game.

I think your problem is this assumption. A part, possibly an important part, but not by any means a primary part unless you make the game be that way.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with players avoiding combat because they prefer to use their brains and other skills to overcome obstacles, that's fine. Don't feel you need to make them engage in combat. If you are worried that you are doing something wrong, just ask them if there is anything you should be doing differently-

[Telonius]

There's more than one way to solve an encounter. If they want to play Ocean's Eleven: D&D edition, that's perfectly kosher according to the rules.

That said, I would have a talk with the players about whether or not they want to keep solving things that way. If they really want to have a less combat-intense game, that's something you need to know. Especially if you're tailoring the bad guy (specific builds, carefully selected gear, etc) it can feel like you're doing a whole lot of work for nothing if the players keep ignoring the challenges. It can also be a big WBL problem if they're bypassing the things with all the loot. There's nothing saying you can't play D&D like that, but it does change things on your side of the screen.

Depending on how they're bypassing the encounters, it might be a case of "ignoring = / = defeating." So they bypass the guard at the outset; when they make enough noise to attract attention later, that guard's going to be there. The dungeon doesn't have to be static encounters room by room; it can be a dynamic thing where events in one area affect the others.

[weckar]

I think we really are defying too many conventions for that to make sense. No real dungeons, players morally opposed to looting, etc. With the direction the story has taken (more political/economic), there has ceased to be a natural way for me to integrate combat encounters.

[Blackhawk748]

I think we really are defying too many conventions for that to make sense. No real dungeons, players morally opposed to looting, etc. With the direction the story has taken (more political/economic), there has ceased to be a natural way for me to integrate combat encounters.

Political you say? Is that an Assassination plot I hear?

But ya, what everyone else has said. If they (and you) are still having fun, then its all good. But if you want combat... it'll take a weirder form in this context, but it'll still be there.

[weckar]

Cool. Thanks, I guess. I suppose it should say enough that they take the world seriously to the point where they consider combat/killing/death to have serious consequences.

And, no, not an assassination plot. More akin to a coverup/embezzlement investigation at this point. Not what I intended, but that's the unintended hook they took. I ran with it.

[Aotrs Commander]

So long as YOU as well as your players are happy with the state of affairs, it doesn't matter. From the sound of it, your players are, so what you need to think about it whether you're happy with it yourself.

And, if not, well, that's something the boards can help with.

[Venger]

Aside from the aforementioned issues/nonissues (are your players having fun? are you having fun?) have you talked your players about this at all? they can't know it's bothering you if you don't complain about it.

[Peat]

To me, it sounds like the group's being good players by taking the ball and running with it, and you're being a good DM by making sure that happens like they want. As long as everyone is enjoying it - including yourself - it sounds awesome.

And if you do get a hankering for a combat then hey, that's what ninja death squads who cover up embezzlement are for :smallwink:

[Lorddenorstrus]

If you really want to force a combat ambush them and make escape impossible at least immediately. So they have to put effort into not doing a full combat. Cause hell I know that would eventually bore me as a DM, Combat is one of my favorite aspects as a player and to flip into a 0 combat environment as a DM would fry my brain. It's a lot easier to recall memorized combat rules than try to be a super computer and continously generate things on the fly as players fly by your 6h prep way quicker than you estimated.

[Mr Adventurer]

If there's money or politics involved, then someone doesn't want those rocks being turned over, and those people have the power and influence to contract violence against their enemies and get away with it.

If there's money or politics involved, there are people who might want to implicate their own enemies with more obvious tactics, too.

[SpicyBoi_Nezu]

I can understand how some parties choose to stay away from combat, and I believe that as a DM, you shouldn't have to really ever FORCE them into anything. My DM has been running a "Non-Combat" based campaign, and we were still able to have fun, and to keep some of our players satiated, he has been giving us at least one opportunity for combat each session. Then again, combat lasts barely 2 rounds because we have our fully devoted tank/dps/bodyguard. I believe that if the campaign has "Necessary" combat, you should be worried. But if it's a campaign like the one I'm playing, where our job is to increase our political standing, and the combat only rolls around when we are traveling, where we can get by without ever having to roll initiative, you should be fine. I'm a firm believer that combat is never NECESSARY, and that almost any encounter is avoidable. I feel like you should still reward your players based off of the combat they would have had, for example, in my old group, the DM would give us 75% of the xp we would have earned if we defeated all of the monsters, and 50% if he thought that the combat was important to the campaign.

[Mister Rex]

This doesn't sound like an issue as long as the players are having fun, but it does seem like it'd be hard to force any kind of conflict if they're being averse to it.

[weckar]

They are certainly not being averse to conflict, just combat. There is emotional turmoil all around and they gladly throw themselves into that. That's a lot more exhausting/draining to GM for, though.

[MeeposFire]

Oddly this was in many ways how players tended to view the game pre 3e especially in classic D&D and 1e (2e too so long as you used the variant XP rules including money for XP).

Back then the primary way of getting XP was through treasure and combat was very deadly so avoiding combat as a matter of course. Granted going months with no combat is a bit on the extreme end of things but the idea of doing this was sound. Combat is dangerous and there are better ways to progress.

Now that being said I would have to imagine that if t has been months since you have had a combat then you must be to an extent ok with what hey are doing because as the DM there are ways to essentially ensure there are combats. Now personally I do not advocate doing them all the time especially if the players are enjoying avoiding combat but if you really want to have a combat every once in a while you certainly can force the issue by doing things like ambushes or having someone attack something they care about or whatnot. There are ways to do it if you really want to. NOt all combats are fully under the discretion of the players.

Of course if you are fine going without combat and they are happy to keep going this way then that is fine too. Yes D&D has a heavy combat focus (it did start off being based off of a war game after all) and its rules for stuff outside of combat are not always that great but even so you can have a lot of fun and not have combat using D&D. Heck I had a 4e game with no combat before (though granted not for months at a time but then again my groups tend to like combat so they would not try to go that long without it) and had a lot of fun so it is certainly possible.

[Vaern]

The game doesn't necessarily need to revolve around combat. I frequently play high-charisma characters and talk my party out of sticky situations. The important thing is that you're throwing encounters with the potential for combat at your players and giving them the option to play the game their own way; if they would rather not fight then that's their own decision.
Although, if you really want to shoehorn some combat in, throw some evil outsiders out there to threaten the world. You can't reasonably negotiate with them to make them stop being evil, and they're not going to go away if you ignore them. It's recommend demons, as devils come with the option for the party to sell their souls in exchange for a combat-free end to their shenanigans.