No fight in RPG

[Jorian Drake]

Hi , I want to make a whole story based in 3.5 (most likely in Forgotten Realms)

without any fights, any ideas what it should have it in?

If it works out, it would be cool, and I opened this in a new threat, couse I think others would this interest too.

So, if you have an idea, or did make such a game by your self already ,please write it.

The game should be run in 4-5 game 'cometogether-s' on weekends (4-8 hours long).

Thanx

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its a matter of designing an adventure that is not based on conflict, or a conflict that cannot be resolved through violent means.

 

 

This usually means mystery, intrigue and politics. The characters progress through the story by talking to NPCs or searching locations for clues. You could compare this type of campaign to an adventure game like The Longest Journey where a normal campaign would be like Baldurs Gate

 

 

The key is to have a story that is so strong and contains so many twists and turns that the characters wont be bored due to lack of combat. If your story is too simple, the characters will either rush through it or you will be forced to stretch it out, creating moments of dead time that will bore your players.

[213374U]

My advice is... find another system and/or setting. D&D is too focused in combat. If you plan on having no combat at all, you'll have no use for a large part of the system. I don't know the FR except from the few games that have been set there, but from what I can see, the setting itself is focused on fighting a great deal as well.

[Jorian Drake]

Its a matter of designing an adventure that is not based on conflict, or a conflict that cannot be resolved through violent means.

 

 

This usually means mystery, intrigue and politics. The characters progress through the story by talking to NPCs or searching locations for clues. You could compare this type of campaign to an adventure game like The Longest Journey where a normal campaign would be like Baldurs Gate

 

 

The key is to have a story that is so strong and contains so many twists and turns that the characters wont be bored due to lack of combat. If your story is too simple, the characters will either rush through it or you will be forced to stretch it out, creating moments of dead time that will bore your players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanx , I do understand this, but what type of 'mystery, intrigue and politics' should it have? Give some tips plz, thats my big problem, I have used many stories and made some own,

I wanna do something the others would not say :

' oh thats why this works so, well we just have to do this and we're finished '

 

Some suprise build-in and i have the problem with the others: they wanna fight a lot, and couse of this i want some help to have the interested in a non-fight game.

[Lancer]

Hi , I want to make a whole story based in 3.5 (most likely in Forgotten Realms)

without any fights, any ideas what it should have it in?

If it works out, it would be cool, and I opened this in a new threat, couse I think others would this interest too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would think this would be very, very difficult considering the heavy focus on combat in the 3.x iterations. It would require some serious playing around with the rules. Your heart might be set on this, but in my honest opinion there are much better rulesets out there for this sort of thing.

 

 

EDIT: I hadn't noticed that Numbers Man beat me to the punch.. But yeah I would agree wholeheartedly. There would be no use for feats, most skills, and all those combat options. 3.x was specifically made for games high on combat (others would say it was made to appeal to munchkins ).

 

Why not try something like the Call of Cthulhu ruleset instead? It would work very well for a mystery/suspense-type of game. And unlike 3.x it was specifically made for games low on combat with its simplified combat system and heavy emphasis on roleplaying.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Lancer

[Kaftan Barlast]

try something like the Call of Cthulhu ruleset instead? It would work very well for a mystery/suspense-type of game. And unlike 3.x it was specifically made for games low on combat with its simplified combat system and heavy emphasis on roleplaying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I would agree to that. Also, get the old D100 edition instead of the new d20 rules which are basicly D&D 3.5 in a different package

 

 

BAD d20 VERSION CALL OF CHULHU.

DO NOT BUY THIS.

[Lancer]

Yeah. d20 Call of Cthulhu is definitely a bad thing. Get 4th edition Call of Cthulhu by Chaosium instead.

[Jediphile]

My advice is... find another system and/or setting. D&D is too focused in combat. If you plan on having no combat at all, you'll have no use for a large part of the system. I don't know the FR except from the few games that have been set there, but from what I can see, the setting itself is focused on fighting a great deal as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but so what?

 

I mean, what RPG system isn't designed to handle combat? They all are, so in a game without battles there will always be a large proportion of the rules that you will not be using. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you.

 

I actually run an AD&D 2e campaign myself, which is definitely geared more toward investigation, politics and plotting than straight combat, so I know it can be done. I haven't removed combat, because the players deserve to see their characters grow and gain new powers, but I've certainly scaled it down a fair bit. They're all level 13+, so I'm really not going to bother playing a random encounter with 13 orcs (since it would just be a pointless dice-rolling exercise...). The encounters do happen, I just tell the players that they did, that the orcs were defeated or chased off, and then I move on... No problem.

[213374U]

Yes, but so what?

So... nothing. That was just some advice, considering that's exactly what the thread starter asked for. Now, I didn't say it's impossible, so whatever examples you might provide defeating a point I haven't actually made are out of place. I just meant it's not the best system to handle that kind of campaign.

 

Again, compare D&D 3.x with say, WW's Storytelling System. In D&D, a great deal of the skills are going to be absolutely useless. The same goes for 90% of the feats. Hit points? Defense score? About half of the spells? The entire combat mechanics system that takes up about 1/4 of the book? All of that is wasted. Furthermore, this introduces an element of imbalance, as the game actually was conceived with combat in mind. People are expected to build characters that can handle themselves in a fight. Other games are much more focused on roleplaying and storytelling that D&D.

 

But yeah, it can be done, I guess.

[Volourn]

Some people should actually play D&D first before making silly stuff up. It is VERY easy to play a campaign in D&D includiong the FR setting without combat. Not hard at all, in fact.

[Shadowstrider]

Can it be done? Sure.

Meant to be done? I'd say not.

[Musopticon?]

And why play after about 70 of the game mechanics are stripped off as there's no combat? Might as well try a different game system.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Jorian Drake]

Some people should actually play D&D first before making silly stuff up. It is VERY easy to play a campaign in D&D includiong the FR setting without combat. Not hard at all, in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanx, and to the others too, but still no campaign ideas.

 

(and by the way I don't think it matters what sys I use, if someone wants to fight, then they do it anyway )

 

So, suggestions for getting the team to like plots, espionage, politics and all the other 'brain-draining' thingys?

 

EDIT :

 

LOL I'M lvl2 now ,didn't noticed it before

Edited January 21, 2006 by jorian

[Kaftan Barlast]

(this is a bit game design university-ish but anyway)

 

RPG means Role-playing GAME which indicated that there must always be an element of gameplay beside story/characters. D&D is aimed at providing a fun and strategic gameplay with many options for handling combat but only a few of the skills can be used for non-combat (even if they do it very well; sense motive, gather information, intimidate etc. ).

 

You would do better with a game whose system provides more options for non-combat gameplay. That way your action-hungry players wont have to sit through an evening without rolling a single die.

 

 

So, suggestions for getting the team to like plots, espionage, politics and all the other 'brain-draining' thingys? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Read a few books, watch a few movies, "borrow" nice plots form them and make a campaign out of it. There is no easy way you can explain in detail what it takes to entertain players. Youll have do make do with a few keypoints

• Have lots of story action, dont let the players get the time to be bored.
  
• Construct the story so that it involves the players directly, dont make them just the regular heroes that have to save a village full of people they dont even know or like.
  
• Always provide the players with clues to your mysteries but never so many that they are able to actually figure it out.
  
• Be prepared to improvise when your players come up with solutions you didnt plan for
  
• If you give them false clues, make it apparent that the info they have is contradictory so they wont go completely off track
  

[Jediphile]

So, suggestions for getting the team to like plots, espionage, politics and all the other 'brain-draining' thingys? 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A nice one is always to frame the PCs for some crime. Murder is the most obvious, but less will do as well. This forces intelligent play, because it's the only way to identify your enemy - you can be as angry as you want to and be as much of a bad-ass warrior as you like, it won't help you one bit if you don't know where to direct your abilities.

 

Of course, this is just a pretext for the later fight once the enemy has been identified, but it's not a bad place to begin, methinks.

 

Another way is for the real enemy to manipulate the PCs into thinking that his enemies are the PCs' enemies (think Palpatine). The PCs will learn to think before they pull out their swords that way. The problem with that is that the PCs can into more trouble than they can get out of again in many situations. After all, saying you were deceived is not really going to matter much once you've mistakenly chopped up an entire family you thought was out to get you...

 

It might be better to let the PCs identify the real villian, and then once they come to confront him, they discover that he has manipulated some other people into thinking the PCs are guilty of something, and while the PCs try to explain it all, he makes sure to slip away quietly. Once he has manipulated people like that against the PCs a few times, they tend to catch on - why fight myself if I can trick others to do it for me?

[Jediphile]

(this is a bit game design university-ish but anyway)

 

RPG means Role-playing GAME which indicated that there must always be an element of gameplay beside story/characters. D&D is aimed at providing a fun and strategic gameplay with many options for handling combat but only a few of the skills can be used for non-combat (even if they do it very well; sense motive, gather information, intimidate etc. ).

 

You would do better with a game whose system provides more options for non-combat gameplay. That way your action-hungry players wont have to sit through an evening without rolling a single die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just don't see that any RPG really falls into that category. Sure, there are loads of RPG systems that are infinitely better than D&D - I'd even go as far as to say that most of them are, but all still do incorporate the combat side, so...

 

Besides, where strategy and tactics are concerned, D&D is one of the worst games you could play - the basic principles are still those of a game more than three decades old, and it really is showing these days. It's fast-paced action, sure, but suspending disbelief (for anyone over the age of 10) is a challenge indeed, when the rules are as unbelievably simplistic as they are in D&D.

 

Yes, White Wolf's storyteller system has some focus on the actual role-playing, but it certainly involves lots and lots of combat rules as well, as do most other systems we could mention. Besides, skills aren't good in and off themselves. I like GURPS, but it really does have so many skills that it's doubtful you'll ever use them all...

[Lancer]

If all the feats, many skills, and combat options get stripped out of 3.5e in your game then whose to say that the resultant system will be balanced?

 

If you are unwilling to use another ruleset built to handle real roleplaying, do you have at least a bunch of house rules to cover all the non-combat situations (non-combat skills and what not) not addressed by the core 3.5e rules?

[Volourn]

Every rule needed to have a non combat oriented D&D campaign is already included.

[Jorian Drake]

Umm, OK , well thanks for infos, but plz don't fight about what game is better for non-fight campaigns

 

The data is this: The team I play with has a history WAY BACK to play D&D, even its 1st edition. So I just can't get them from it, I, myself likes 'no class' systems better too.

 

Yes, I know I can borrow things from other events/movies/etc.. , but I don't like to do it so, well I just wanna know if someone of you did make any real unique, fun, no-fight campaign themself.

This are the sys-s what we can use: D&D20:FR, SW, our own (all of us changed to the new 3.5,and no one plays edition 1 or 2.0), White Wolf: Masquerade(+the new one, Requiem if I remember correctly), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, 7th sea (new for us)

 

I don't like to see the group novadays to go for HacknSlash style, I want to change course in time

 

PS: Here are already some useful ideas and concepts, so thanx, Can't wait for more :D

 

...so anything to add here?

Edited January 23, 2006 by jorian

[Jorian Drake]

Umm, plz some more ideas yes? ^_^

[Llyranor]

Forcing a non-combat state is kind of lame. Shouldn't avoidance of physical conflicts be its own goal? Just because you're an adventurer doesn't mean you shouldn't minimize your chances of dying. Fighting should only occur when absolutely necessary, and the gaming mindset has really disrupted that.

[Jediphile]

One way to discourage monster slashing is to give out more xp for a peaceful solution than for a violent one. I always do this myself to discourage hack 'n slash. After all, D&D does push hard for combat, so just killing the fifteen orcs attacking the caravan of merchants is easy, but negotiating with them and get them to fall back peacefully, now that is a challenge indeed.

 

As for a plot, you could run a pretty standard adventure with a village being plundered on a regular basis by a recently settled tribe of orcs. Then encourage the PCs to scout the orcs strengths and weaknesses before a confrontation, and when they do so, they find that the orcs really only do it because they have no food and no resources. Now the PCs have a social and moral dilemma to solve rather than just to kill the evil orcs and be done with it. The way to true and intelligent role-playing is never to stereotype any of your characters (including monsters), since they're all unique individuals with their own backstories and motives, even if those are fairly simple ones. These orcs might have been pushed out of their former home by a competing orcish tribe, for example, and so they had no choice but to look for a new home by whatever means, since the alternative was to die. Do they deserve death just for being orcs?

[Jorian Drake]

Forcing a non-combat state is kind of lame. Shouldn't avoidance of physical conflicts be its own goal? Just because you're an adventurer doesn't mean you shouldn't minimize your chances of dying. Fighting should only occur when absolutely necessary, and the gaming mindset has really disrupted that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not the dying is the problem here, the problem is when they want to play diablo-style in pnp , and that not for just one game :ph34r:

[Jorian Drake]

One way to discourage monster slashing is to give out more xp for a peaceful solution than for a violent one. I always do this myself to discourage hack 'n slash. After all, D&D does push hard for combat, so just killing the fifteen orcs attacking the caravan of merchants is easy, but negotiating with them and get them to fall back peacefully, now that is a challenge indeed.

 

As for a plot, you could run a pretty standard adventure with a village being plundered on a regular basis by a recently settled tribe of orcs. Then encourage the PCs to scout the orcs strengths and weaknesses before a confrontation, and when they do so, they find that the orcs really only do it because they have no food and no resources. Now the PCs have a social and moral dilemma to solve rather than just to kill the evil orcs and be done with it. The way to true and intelligent role-playing is never to stereotype any of your characters (including monsters), since they're all unique individuals with their own backstories and motives, even if those are fairly simple ones. These orcs might have been pushed out of their former home by a competing orcish tribe, for example, and so they had no choice but to look for a new home by whatever means, since the alternative was to die. Do they deserve death just for being orcs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanx (w00t)

Well thats a good idea :D

I will try that

I just hope they will think about any other alternative resolving than battle

[Lancer]

I think that Planescape: Torment was an excellent example of a game that had many, many non-combat solutions to problems. I think a lot of inspiration can be had just going through that game.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Lancer