Combatfree campaign

[Mastikator]

In my group I'm next to be the DM after the current DM. We're not playing D&D, but it is a fantasy adventure RPG (low fantasy & gritty actually). And I'm gonna see if I can make the campaign completely without any combat, instead focus on survival, sneaking around, social skills, probably sea-skills*
(and by that I don't mean, "make a roll... you succeed", but instead integrate as much free-form into every moment as possible, engaging the players to describe how they do it).

Anyway, what I wanted to ask is, how would you perceive such a campaign? Would you like to play in one, or would you prefer combat? How much combat do you prefer?

[Tyndmyr]

I prefer roughly equal parts combat and non-combat.

Every campaign I have ever been in, regardless of DM intent, eventually had combat. Sooner or later, a player will say "Aright, screw this. I shoot him".

Yes, this may in fact be a horrible idea. They will do so anyway.

[arrowhen]

If it wasd D&D, I'd *hate* it. If it was a system with an interesting conflict resolution system, it would be fine. Freeform bugs me, though - I want gameplay with my storytelling.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, system is definitely big. D&D is not the choice for no-combat games.

CoC is a game that rewards avoiding combat, and often involves interesting story. Decent option. Some combat will still likely happen, but it's much less preferred.

[grimbold]

That would be strictly roleplaying, totally and completely, with some skill checks. I think that if you were VERY VERY careful and planned VERY VERY well it might work and be really cool or it could suck and get dull fast, personally i like to kills things. but as tynyndr said some players might just be like 'he's annoying die! DIE! DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!!!

thats my (realtively) honest opinion

[misterk]

I enjoy combat where it makes sense, but in terms of story, I like stories with little combat. One of my favourite campaigns was an L5R winter court campaign, where there were a couple of duels, and that was about it.

[misterk]

oh, ideally a combat free campaign needs to give a reason for no combat. So in l5r trying to kill your enemies will result in you being filleted. That is, you need a system in which the pcs simply aren't able to hack their way to victory. Any sufficiently lethal system should do this adequately.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, high lethality combat systems tend to reward ambushes, providing you are fighting against opponents more or less like you. Consider first level optimized characters in D&D as an example of high lethality combat. It makes combat a pretty reasonable idea, so long as you shoot first.

[Salbazier]

There's some people who likes that kind of campaign. I think most enjoy mix between combat and non-combat RP. Better ask your players first. As for myself, ummm, I want to say 'no' but I've heard about succesful campaign focusing on social/non-violent conflicts. So, maybe. Depend on other stuffs like setting, theme, ect.

I'm fine with diceless system though, due to Nobilis.

[mucat]

In itself, a low- or no-combat campaign isn't a bad thing at all. I've played a thief whose attitude was "If I'm in a fight, then I have already screwed the job up utterly," and had great fun with the character. She did end up having to fight her way out of a few messes...but only after plans A, B, and C had failed, and she was like on plan Q. Even then, her approach to a flight wasn't "destroy all who oppose me," but "stay alive somehow, maneuver these guys away from the door, then run like hell!"

However, it's a different thing altogether for the DM to decide unilaterally that there will be no fighting. Your players may see that as railroading, with good reason. It's up to them whether to throw a punch, pull a gun, or walk into a situation where others might do this, and you shouldn't limit their choices.

Instead of thinking of the campaign in terms of what it won't be about, think of what you do want to include. If you keep your players busy and engaged with exciting skill challenges, social situations, races again the clock, and general adventuring that they never quite get around to starting any fight, great! But if they do get in a fight, then the ensuing chaos can be as much fun -- and as far-reaching in its ramifications -- as any of the other messes they get in.

By the way, I second what others said -- D&D isn't he best game system for a low-combat campaign. It will work -- hell, any system, including freeform, will work - but they might have more fun if 80% of the game mechanics aren't designed around ways to kill things. I like GURPS myself, but you might look around for a system you think is right for the campaign. A rules-light system like Risus might be exactly the flavor you want.

[Mastikator]

As I did say, it's not D&D, it's actually called Trudvagn, don't ask what it means because it's the name of the campaign setting. :P It works good without combat, we've already done a few sessions where no initiative were rolled. Nobody really complained, on the other hand this is a hardcore roleplayer group where people would rather let their character die than metagame or minmax (in fact, some of us act out PTSS if forced to kill someone).

I won't force them out of combat, but I will deliberately not have many situations where violence is the only or most obvious solution.

[mucat]

As I did say, it's not D&D, it's actually called Trudvagn, don't ask what it means because it's the name of the campaign setting. :P It works good without combat, we've already done a few sessions where no initiative were rolled. Nobody really complained, on the other hand this is a hardcore roleplayer group where people would rather let their character die than metagame or minmax (in fact, some of us act out PTSS if forced to kill someone).

I won't force them out of combat, but I will deliberately not have many situations where violence is the only or most obvious solution.

So you've got players who love challenging roleplay and rarely resort to violence, a system that supports non-combat scenes well, and a flexible enough attitude that if the players ever are in the mood for a good old-fashioned brawl, you won't try to prevent it...everything sounds good.

I'm no longer even sure why you asked the original question.

[Delwugor]

I prefer campaigns where combat is a means to an goal not the goal itself. I'm not sure about never having combat but I've enjoyed many where we'd go a whole month without one.

[Tyndmyr]

So you've got players who love challenging roleplay and rarely resort to violence, a system that supports non-combat scenes well, and a flexible enough attitude that if the players ever are in the mood for a good old-fashioned brawl, you won't try to prevent it...everything sounds good.

I'm no longer even sure why you asked the original question.

It does indeed sound fitting. Not my cuppa tea, certainly, but it looks like everything is lined up nicely for your group to have a quite enjoyable game, and that's the important bit.

Having a system that supports what you're trying to do is very underrated, imo. Sure, D&D is good, and you CAN try to make it do anything, but some things just dont work out well. Glad to see appropriate use of other systems.

[ericgrau]

It could work. I think it could work with any system for that matter regardless of mechanics. But I think even the D&D mechanics could add a load of fun. Charisma is now big, constitution is now minor. 2/3 of the time you'd put down the dice, but when you do pick them up there's skills, illusions, enchantments, divinations, grappling, flight, prestidigitation, the threat of violence without actually using it, etc., etc. Check out the giantitp homebrew compendium for additional non-combat spells. As a blatant plug my greater prestidigitation is one example.

If you're familiar with D&D I'd stick with D&D. If you know another system, I'd consider both. As for amount of combat, I'd say the PCs should always have the option, but there should usually be better solutions. Laws help there, as they usually require live capture for a trial, frown upon collateral damage, let you inform the city guard once you find a culprit rather than capturing him yourself, etc. Investigation and/or social groups with their own set of goals often lead to making a lot of contacts and role-playing too.

[Tengu_temp]

I've never played in a completely non-combat game, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. It would probably focus heavily on character interaction and either mystery-solving or political machinations. Now, such a game would need something that would draw me strongly, or else I probably wouldn't bother to join - I prefer if there is at least some combat, overall.