Wouldn't work. Not on an ongoing basis, anyway. Maybe a couple sessions before the inevitable set in. Gamers just want to kick ass too much. And if it actually advertised no combat, it would be the kind of game that would only ever be played if the designer could magically duplicate himself a few times. Or possibly once by some RPG.Net hipster who will play absolutely anyone once just to say he did. And even he might just buy the PDF and say he played for "indie" cred, because, well, who would know?

Desire to brawl is just one of the fundamental forces of the RPG universe. Like our gravity or magnetism.

Well, combine that with Droog's point, which I think is correct, that you shouldn't plan for no combat to the point of excluding it altogether. Just make it extremely dangerous, at least without a great deal of strategic maneuvering preceding it, and then make the maneuvering itself interesting enough. At that point my question is whether there's a benefit to making the combat any more or less interesting than the other stuff.

For example, Harnmaster and BRP make combat dangerous and interesting at the same time. From what I've read, The Riddle of Steel does, too, if you fight without the benefit of Spiritual Attributes. Would it make sense to use systems like those for combat, or would it be better to use the same universal mechanic as other elements...or even something ridiculously simple like Rock Scissors Paper, loser dies?

Personally I think that if the players are familiar with the complex system already, it's worth using if everyone agrees. But if they aren't, then it shouldn't be used. Why? Because the exact ramifications of going to combat in any situation should be well understood by all.

(This is also incidentally why I suspect it's good to start any campaign by engaging the crunchiest bits, and that after you do that, you can "back off" and work more on the more "roleplayed" layers of play.)

Quote from: YamoWouldn't work. Not on an ongoing basis, anyway. Maybe a couple sessions before the inevitable set in.

I ran a fantasy campaign in four pieces, stretched over a decade, with very little combat.

In my current campaign, we've had around 15 sessions, only one of which was combat.  (We deliberately did a combat session to test my new approach to same.)

I'm having a certain amount of difficulty accepting the idea that my games do not exist.  :bemusedly:

Quote from: KeranI'm having a certain amount of difficulty accepting the idea that my games do not exist.  :bemusedly:

I'm confused, too, considering that you just described a game with combat that is presumably run with a system that includes combat rules.

Quote from: YamoI'm confused, too, considering that you just described a game with combat that is presumably run with a system that includes combat rules.

Well, yes, but I also described a game that went for a large number of sessions without any.  So I'm not sure how they could fit a description of going for a couple of sessions before the inevitable set in.  Whatever the inevitable is, exactly: but since the paragraph started out 'Wouldn't work', I'm assuming it's something bad, like crashing boredom.

It so happened that the combat session I ran worked, so we incorporated it into the game instead deciding that it was a failed test and writing it out.  But wouldn't have stopped playing if that scene hadn't come off, and if there was no combat at all in the game and no prospect of doing any in a satisfactory manner either.

Sometime last decade I was involved in a Shadowrun campaign that was explicitly oriented towards avoiding combat.

There were three primary reasons for taking that approach:

1) A desire to keep in the spirit of the "shadow" part of the game's name.

2) A means of challenge, where combat was seen as a last resort if not the result of some failure in either our playing or our character's abilities.

3) A contrast from the previous campaign, which had been extremely combat oriented.

The campaign was very successful.  There was never a lack of challenge, and none of us found it boring in the least.  Chalk it up to having a good GM, or all of us being on the same page, but it was really the most rewarding, fun and challenging SR game we'd played.  

It's not that we never had combat in the game, as we did occasionally muck a run up fairly badly, but we tried our best to be silent, invisible, quick and precise in our actions.  The combat, when it did occur, seemed more important and involving for its novelty.  

Anyway, I'm not sure that I have any solid advice that hasn't already been given in the thread.  It's just a matter of shifting the challenges around, I'd say.  There were still resource management elements in the gameplay, still win/lose/draw elements, &c.

The only reason Ive not run combat in a new campaign/ruleset because I hadnt gotten that far in the rule book.

Thanks for the comments.

I think it's right that one shouldn't absolutely forswear the possibility of combat, making it undesirable or overly dangerous is a better bet as then if it does occur for any reason it will have much more impact.

The trick to downplaying combat is probably to make other things more effective and less risky, rather than some kind of metagame ban.  As Elliot says, if it is very dangerous and the players understand how it works that will tend to downplay it anyway.

Slothrop, could you tell us more about the Shadowrun game?  In some ways that sounds similar, even though the setting is utterly different, what kind of stuff happened in play and how did you defeat enemies without fighting them?

Quote from: BalbinusThe trick to downplaying combat is probably to make other things more effective and less risky, rather than some kind of metagame ban.  As Elliot says, if it is very dangerous and the players understand how it works that will tend to downplay it anyway.

In my opinion, equally interesting and viable should replace the bolded words. I don't believe that risky combat dissuades players from using it as long as using the combat system is fun.

Quote from: droogIn my opinion, equally interesting and viable should replace the bolded words. I don't believe that risky combat dissuades players from using it as long as using the combat system is fun.

Good point, I think you're correct.

That said, a simple combat system with high risk usually isn't that interesting.  CoC's combat is very deadly for example, but not actually all that mechanically interesting.  Still, I take your point.

Quote from: BalbinusSlothrop, could you tell us more about the Shadowrun game?  In some ways that sounds similar, even though the setting is utterly different, what kind of stuff happened in play and how did you defeat enemies without fighting them?

I'm afraid that I'm going to be sketchy on details, as this was quite literally a decade ago, but our team's primary focus was on going into places, silently and unseen, typically finding something (or someone), and getting out without any trace.

To those ends, we made characters that were oriented towards such, and had the necessary skills to make such play interesting and challenging.  So, yeah, our team didn't have the standard street samurai figure (not sure how familiar you are with SR terms...hell, after this long, I'm not sure how familiar I am...) and we didn't really fashion our characters with the idea of combat in mind.

If I recall correctly, our team was composed of:

1) A rigger
2) A mage, oriented towards illusion/deception type magic.  (My character)
3) A hacker...err, decker, or whatever they were called in-game.
4) A faceman type, who also happened to be our primary means of killing people when it came to that.

Our jobs were typically presented as being successful only if we were unseen and didn't leave any evidence -- including wounded or dead folks -- of our having been there, and what we took and/or left.  

The GM conciously fashioned situations where the challenges weren't enemies to mow through, but rather to either avoid or coerce.  

It was a pretty successful -- though, unfortunately, unresolved -- campaign.  It's not that it never had combat, as I recall we screwed up three or so of the jobs and had to do a little shootin'/stabbin'/magic flingin' to get out alive, but we did attempt to conciously avoid combat.  Not in that we found it boring or somehow too base for us, mind.  We just all appreciated the challenge of not having that option to accomplish our aims.


What's more interesting, I think, is that we had even less combat in the game that followed that one up, and there was no prior agreement about avoiding combat.  It just occured naturally.  And in a Dark Sun game, no less.  

And then the game after those two was just a series of old fashioned dungeon crawls that had combat every 42 seconds or so.

Quote from: BalbinusNow, I'm not saying combat is wrong, I'm running a Vikings game at the moment after all, but let's say I wanted to run a game with suspense and intrigue but no combat.  What tips would you all have and how would you keep it interesting?

When I ran my version of The Honorable School Boy  set during the communist insurgency in Malaysia there was no combat at all. What I did was to make sure there were other activities that replaced combat that provided that added thrill.

I replayed the safe cracking scene in The Ipress(sp) Files - Micheal Caine never more cooler in spy geek chic - and instead of combat created situations where the players resorted to blackmail, theft etc to accomplish their goals.

There was a lot of stalking, bribing and toughtalk but no combat what so ever.  Make no mistake,there was violence in the air, and indeed the dirty/wet work was not done by the players but their underlings. The thrill (for the players anyway) came from planning and scheming.

I suppose trying to break into a guarded house would mean there is plenty of opportunities for combat, but having discussed the nature of the campiagn before hand and coming to a consensus as to the type of game not to mention characters which would be in play, there was never any desire for combat.

There was a hell of a lot of stuff that was going on, that was just as exciting, and besides the players became rather competitive as to who could come up with the most violence free scheme/plan.

I always had specific goals that the players had to acomplish. Each session had many threads, but there were specific goals, the players had to accomplish in that session. I would not try to run games without combat in an improv style - it has never worked for me in the long run.

Regards,
David R

Thanks Slothrop, much appreciated.

David R, bloody hell,  that sounds brilliant.  What inspired that choice of setting?  I doubt it was that important, but out of interest what system did you use?

That does sound mind-blowingly good David R.

Right now, in my current In Harm's Way game, the PCs are playing American naval officers in the First Barbary war - 1803. They really - I mean really - dislike the British Navy for perhaps valid reasons, and are spoiling for a fight. They captured a small Algerian port, and went out of their way to destroy a British frigate which had been damaged on a reef and hauled down on the beach for hull repairs, claiming they thought it was a Barbary frigate. The Brits demanded restitution, and took over one of the small forts covering the harbor until restitution is made. The PCs can't force the Limeys out without causing a war, and the British can't leave without their restitution from the damned Jonathans. Since then, the sessions have become full of political maneuverings and bluffs, as each side tries to disadvantage the other without stepping over the line into war. So far it's been fascinating.

-clash