Just that; the question above, for answering on this thread.

Is it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?

RPGPundit

The answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.

Depends on what you mean by feasible and define as an RPG.

Economically feasible: Well, I think the market could support this. SA! is not combat oriented. Yes, there is combat but it is really about stealth and thinking up clever ways to accomplish your goals. I could easily see and entirely non-combat game where you solve a murder mystery in character....

Feasible in terms of implementing an RPG model: Yes. You could have a game where the chance/game mechanic is all about gaining fame or solving a crime or playing out a role. Larps could do this quite well but most (that I have seen) include combat mechanics.

Now, if you define RPGs as games with combat...well, no, you can't have an RPG without combat but I do not think that is what you meant.

Bill

Sure. Why not?

Seanchai

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.

Nail, meet head. Watch your thumbs!

While I think it is possible to have an RPG without a dedicated combat system per se, I'm not sure its a good idea.

Allen

I think it's a perfectly sound idea.  I'd just have to be in the right frame of mind to play it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.

I agree with this.

I do agree that you can have campaigns where no combat takes place.  In my Traveller campaign, we ran an 8 hour game every week for a year, and we had all of two or three combats in the entire campaign (one was against a kind of snake, one against some mobsters, and one against the military).

But there was plenty of challenge, as the players attempted to build up their merchant company and went from place to place trying to get the best deals, etc., and unravelled a kind of cosmic conspiracy they were caught up in.

The thing is, its one thing to run a campaign without combat, and another to make a GAME without combat.  I think that probably, an RPG has to allow for at least the possibility that combat will occur.

RPGPundit

Sure, it should make allowances for combat.  Even a game about...oh, I dunno...pastry chefs can devolve into a pie fight.

Hi!
  OK, I am going to say "Sure!" with a proviso.
  I don't think every game could or should do this.
  But I know it has been done and will be done again. Look at Paranoia, if its done right, there is no fighting, same with CoC, no?
  These are mainstream games, not "Story Games" or whatever. And if you open the flood gates to include them, there is even more potential for an RPG without fighting.
  I don't think every RPG should be devoid of fighting (in fact, D&D would be terrible without combat mechanics), I just think that combat mechanics do not define whether a game is an RPG or not...

Depends on what you call combat... does it mean that you use some special mechanics, different frome mechanics for everything else (like in DnD), or that characters get into combat...

It probably dous not matter, in both cases answer is yes, but if I was about to play a game which has some mechanics dedicated purely to comabt I eould like to use them...

Quote from: RPGPunditJust that; the question above, for answering on this thread.

Is it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?

RPGPundit

Is it possible?  Yes.  Is it feasible?  Probably not, at least not in the traditional roleplaying sense.  I guess I'd need more information, though, because I can't envision what the game's focus would be.  A game without any sort of physical threat is not going to appeal to a lot of people outside of a one-shot, and if not done well, it's going to feel more like a card or board game than an RPG.  

I can see maybe a game based on intrigue, but then you'd have to have some sort of mechanic when a character's enemy sends assassins to kill him.  I think an investigative game would get fairly boring after a while without being able to confront the murderer/nameless horror at the end.  But the main problem I see is that I'd never be able to find players for a campaign that did not involve some sort of combat.  

Games like My Life With Master or Nicotine Girls come to mind when someone says "no combat," but I doubt that's what you're looking for.  It's been a long time since I looked at Nobilis, but wasn't there a huge emphasis on _not_ picking fights?  

Pete

Quote from: dindenverLook at Paranoia, if its done right, there is no fighting, same with CoC, no?

No fighting in Paranoia or CoC?  I don't think we run in the same gaming circles. . .

Pete

RPGs need some sort of conflict to remain entertaining, but "conflict" can mean all sorts of things, and not only rolling for damage. It can be problematics, diplomacy, investigation, mysteries, conspiracies, and all sorts of non-automatically-violent oppositions and competitions between characters, groups, allegiances and so on, so forth.

So long as you have something to "solve", there's a dynamic for an RPG right there. Now whether you'd have a public for a game that specifically excludes violent altercations depends on how the game's designed. If you want it to be successful, you need to replace the concept of combat by something that is just as cool and fulfilling for the potential players of the game. Might be a sense of paranoia, mystery (à la Call of Cthulhu for instance - you could arguably give the rules - combat system to the PCs without any noticeable difference in the game play by just assuming that "PC fight Old One = Automatic Death" ) or something else. But MAINTAINING the interest after a few sessions of that game seems doubtful. Why? Because violence is just easy, directly fulfilling on many different levels for many different types of players.