To begin this thread, I'll go on record saying that I consider myself an old fashioned Dungeon Master. My father taught me how to play on 3.5 edition rules. Recently there was been some debate with my current player group. As the title suggest, my players have come out and said that they don't want to do any combat while playing. Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM. What do I do? As I don't want to stop playing with this group, as they've become close friends of mine, but the way they want to play doesn't feel like D&D anymore.
I've seen many players that don't care for combat and wouldn't miss it if it were removed entirely from D&D but I've never seen an entire group agree on that (or honestly on anything) before. Some things you could try would be introducing more combat-optional encounters with threatening NPCs/monsters that could either be battled or reasoned with. Also if you're using battle maps, minis, and tracking all the minutiae of combat, you could try going more theater of the mind style with more emphasis on letting players imagine the combat action and less on nitpicking the gaming rules - that can feel less restrictive and more interesting for players who otherwise get bored with combat
If I had players who didn't want combat I'd tell them I'm not the DM for them, but I would happily hand my notes off to the one who wanted to volunteer running the game sans combat. In this instance, where the players have "asked to have greater influence over how I DM" I doubt I'd get many takers, because they still want me to run it. I'm not talented enough to run a combat-lighter game; it wouldn't be fun for me and that would then be inflicted upon the players. If we were indeed close friends, we can find other hobbies to engage in, but D&D and perhaps TRPGs in general might not be the way unless someone else in the group runs it.
If I were to continue with this group's train of thought, I'd be looking at other systems. 5E can be played with zero combat, but I would prefer to look at a system that is better suited for that style. With that I'd ask the players how they feel about changing system, and working with me to experiment with other systems.
I concur with Blaen though, if you could provide more details we might be able to get to whatever root there may be to this problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
As the title suggest, my players have come out and said that they don't want to do any combat while playing. Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM. What do I do? As I don't want to stop playing with this group, as they've become close friends of mine, but the way they want to play doesn't feel like D&D anymore.
Decide if you are ok with the direction this is going, and if you'll be able to enjoy the party telling you how to run the game. If it's not for you, then it's not for you.
On the other side of this, if the current party doesn't like the way that combat is being run, or the direction that you are taking the game, I would have a reasonable expectation for the players to speak up and voice their grievances. If they are founded (meaning they have merit, regardless of your agreeance with their opinion) it may be worth considering a compromise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Did they say why they didn't want to do combat? Do they find it boring or morally objectionable for their characters? What have they been up to instead?
If combat has grown stale, there's definitely ways you can address this to make it more interesting (A simple search on this site will probably turn up plenty of resources). If the players find it morally objectionable in that they don't like killing humanoids for any reason, you can always shift your campaign's focus to some unambiguous evil; undead, demons, evil robots, etc, so that they don't have to worry if goblin #4 had a family or not.
Knowing as little as I do about your table, my advice is limited, but I would draw their attention to the fact that about 3/4 of all published rules are combat-based, so I would question what you're really doing if combat is fully off the table. I would focus more on why they want combat off the table and trying to address their concerns.
If you want to keep playing with them and they want a less combat based game, then consider looking for a different game. D&D isn't the only thing out there, and there are other games (Call of Cthulhu I believe is one) which combat is a rare thing because you'll probably die or worse. Discuss as a group if there's a more suited game you would like to play instead, and then work out if anyone wants to DM it, especially if you don't!
There's nothing wrong with a game that doesn't have combat and is more collaborative in style... but D&D is not a good game system to do it with (you want one of the various narrativist rules-lite systems).
I wouldn't try to run a game like that if you aren't comfortable with it, though. Maybe convince someone else to run?
Have you considered "The Wild Beyond the Witchlight"? I am running it for a combat-adverse group and it's very fun. I do miss combat sometimes, but it has helped stretch my DM creativity. You can lean into the puzzles, mysteries, and role playing. Now if that doesn't sound fun for you as a DM, that's your prerogative of course but you should check out the module just in case.
I’d echo wild beyond the witchlight to give them options and try a combat light official variant(I think future modules will have . However, if you aren’t doing combat at all that’s a lot of rules overhead and classes you don’t need.
What do they enjoy? I had a great one shot on monster of the week(which is really really easy to pick up and they effectively world build with you) , call of Cthulhu doesn’t need fighting just a lot of running away. Arguably do they just want a catch-up / board game or is it the combat is too samey(in which case pathfinder 2 is good for dynamic interesting combat but has lots of rules overhead and I suspect they are wanting to step back).
There are other TTRPGs that focus more on the RP without the combat. Those systems would suit them far better.( I Mean the vast majority of the rules of DND is running combat). I think it's called Fate.
The thing to keep in mind is that you too, are a player in a game, but you also a kind of host for the game. Your game experience happens before and after the game in the processes of game management. It doesn't really matter what the game system is. What matters is that you are okay with any changes they want.
If you don't want to integrate some changes, then by all means, let them know. It is okay to just say that's not the sort of game you want to run or, that might be the type of game someone else would like to run and, you'd be willing to be a player but not a GM for such a game. If you otherwise like the group, then that would be a good solution.
"That's interesting, but in that sort of game I'd rather play than GM. How about someone else run a game?"
"Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM."
That part is scary. DMing is already a lot of prep work. Very much a labor of love. You- "you" need to enjoy what you are running. So from a long-term DM (40+ years), just walk away, run if you have to.
I’ll give your table the respect of assuming they have sincere reasons for asking to have no combat. Others have already said that D&D isn’t a great fit for such a game (I concur), but I’d find it a difficult game to run for any system I know. Not only because most RPGs dedicate a lot of structure to combat, but more fundamentally because the risk of combat is a major source of tension in so many plots. Even political intrigue or mysteries. If players are confident going in that they won’t face any combat, it they can not only ignore preparing for such things (classes, equipment, spells, tactics), they can act in ways that wouldn’t make sense if violence were an option. It feels like another way to take away agency by removing consequences.
I’m sure there are ways to build a campaign like that yet avoid my concerns, but it feels like a high bar for the DM. And if they are also wanting to tell you how to do that job? It may not be the right table for you in that role, friend or no.
If you want to give it a shot anyway, I might offer “It sounds like you all have a clearer idea of how a game like that would work than I do. How about if one of you takes the screen and runs a short campaign like you’re describing. That will help me see what you want and maybe expose some things we’d need to house rule to make it work.”
If they go for it, play things straight, don’t sabotage anything. But take notes of what bothers you or what you’d have troubles with as DM, so you can talk about it as a learner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tharn Redeye - Half-orc Fighter - Heroes of Wildemount Kellen Belladar- Human Cleric - Troubles in the Wildwood: Blackthorn Brin Rainblade - Human Barbarian - The Great Orca Dungeon
I’ll give your table the respect of assuming they have sincere reasons for asking to have no combat. Others have already said that D&D isn’t a great fit for such a game (I concur), but I’d find it a difficult game to run for any system I know.
There are plenty of systems that are capable of handling it, but running that sort of campaign is a fairly specific skill that isn't all that similar to DMing a typical D&D campaign. I was serious about 'let someone else run it'; that will both give you a sense of how to do that sort of thing, and whether you actually want to try.
Quick background on me I've been playing since the original basic set... my first DM was my minister at Culver Military Academy in 1981 and I have mostly DM'd through junior high, high school, college and in my professional life though I am playing now with friends up the east coast on Foundry as a player.
My initial thoughts are somewhat snide... along the lines of "this isn't strawberry shortcake & my little ponies"
I'd hear them out on what they are looking for... political intrigue, heist like the new keys to the golden vault, etc. and if their suggestions are reasonable and you are going to enjoy the challenge and it will be fun for you go for it... but if it is going to be outside what you're comfortable with or too much work or just not fun for you... then let them know why and let them play with another DM or to give up this idea of no combat with you as DM or some other compromise.
If they are miserable with combat... then they need to maybe play a different DM or RP that caters more to what they are looking for. Funny the line about no combat and also more influence over how you campaign... isn't that more influence in and of itself. Seems a little like ordering a cheeseburger without any cheese, bun or meat patty but with lettuce and tomato... maybe just order a salad instead.
Also look at what you are doing as a DM... are they more RP and you are setting up a murder hobo campaign where it is all combat to combat without much interaction like a game of Diablo leading them to the extreme opposite of wanting "no combat." like a game of Clue.
None of this means or suggests you have to stop being friends. Could even, if they find a DM, or if one of them wants to DM then you join as a player and see if you like it.
So, they just want to come over and roll play and change the world you created? What would happen if this world everyone collaborated on was raided? Would they fight for it or quit? What if a dragon attacked, ate half of a farmers livestock and tunneled into some nearby hills easily accessed through some secret tunnels that labyrinth towards a dungeon like lair on the beast? If they don't want to protect this make-believe place where they roll play and do something else, THEY ARE LITERALLY REFUSING TO PLAY DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!!! You should kill off their characters meticulously, methodically, joyfully and find some wild people that want to play the game your father taught you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time man creates something new, improved and fool proof, nature comes out with a new fool.
"Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM."
That part is scary. DMing is already a lot of prep work. Very much a labor of love. You- "you" need to enjoy what you are running. So from a long-term DM (40+ years), just walk away, run if you have to.
Again, D&D doesn't directly support this. But something like Cypher System provides ways for the players to interject and change the narrative.
my players have come out and said that they don't want to do any combat while playing. Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM.
Greater influence over how you DM, makes you their puppet.
If they do not want to play the game you want to run, have one of them run they game they want to play. That way, you get to sit back and be a player.
Old-fashioned or Old School DMs run the games they want to run, and players either play, or don't.
Yikes. My kids (12 and 15, and nephew 8) get bored when there’s no combat. It’s really hard to please everyone when I’m the DM and the players are the kids and my wife and sister. Even my wife prefers having things to fight. My sister and son do most of the role playing…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To begin this thread, I'll go on record saying that I consider myself an old fashioned Dungeon Master. My father taught me how to play on 3.5 edition rules. Recently there was been some debate with my current player group. As the title suggest, my players have come out and said that they don't want to do any combat while playing. Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM. What do I do? As I don't want to stop playing with this group, as they've become close friends of mine, but the way they want to play doesn't feel like D&D anymore.
That just sounds like roleplaying or Collabing a story of some sort. It's no longer DnD or any other ttrpgs.
Any reasoning behind all these significant deviations from traditional table top gaming?
Just from the info you've given, it all sounds like a bizarre situation....
Edit: this will also put a huge burden on you as a "DM"/editor way beyond what's normally expected. There's gotta be more to this story.
I've seen many players that don't care for combat and wouldn't miss it if it were removed entirely from D&D but I've never seen an entire group agree on that (or honestly on anything) before. Some things you could try would be introducing more combat-optional encounters with threatening NPCs/monsters that could either be battled or reasoned with. Also if you're using battle maps, minis, and tracking all the minutiae of combat, you could try going more theater of the mind style with more emphasis on letting players imagine the combat action and less on nitpicking the gaming rules - that can feel less restrictive and more interesting for players who otherwise get bored with combat
If I had players who didn't want combat I'd tell them I'm not the DM for them, but I would happily hand my notes off to the one who wanted to volunteer running the game sans combat. In this instance, where the players have "asked to have greater influence over how I DM" I doubt I'd get many takers, because they still want me to run it. I'm not talented enough to run a combat-lighter game; it wouldn't be fun for me and that would then be inflicted upon the players. If we were indeed close friends, we can find other hobbies to engage in, but D&D and perhaps TRPGs in general might not be the way unless someone else in the group runs it.
If I were to continue with this group's train of thought, I'd be looking at other systems. 5E can be played with zero combat, but I would prefer to look at a system that is better suited for that style. With that I'd ask the players how they feel about changing system, and working with me to experiment with other systems.
I concur with Blaen though, if you could provide more details we might be able to get to whatever root there may be to this problem.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Decide if you are ok with the direction this is going, and if you'll be able to enjoy the party telling you how to run the game. If it's not for you, then it's not for you.
On the other side of this, if the current party doesn't like the way that combat is being run, or the direction that you are taking the game, I would have a reasonable expectation for the players to speak up and voice their grievances. If they are founded (meaning they have merit, regardless of your agreeance with their opinion) it may be worth considering a compromise.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Did they say why they didn't want to do combat? Do they find it boring or morally objectionable for their characters? What have they been up to instead?
If combat has grown stale, there's definitely ways you can address this to make it more interesting (A simple search on this site will probably turn up plenty of resources). If the players find it morally objectionable in that they don't like killing humanoids for any reason, you can always shift your campaign's focus to some unambiguous evil; undead, demons, evil robots, etc, so that they don't have to worry if goblin #4 had a family or not.
Knowing as little as I do about your table, my advice is limited, but I would draw their attention to the fact that about 3/4 of all published rules are combat-based, so I would question what you're really doing if combat is fully off the table. I would focus more on why they want combat off the table and trying to address their concerns.
If you want to keep playing with them and they want a less combat based game, then consider looking for a different game. D&D isn't the only thing out there, and there are other games (Call of Cthulhu I believe is one) which combat is a rare thing because you'll probably die or worse. Discuss as a group if there's a more suited game you would like to play instead, and then work out if anyone wants to DM it, especially if you don't!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
There's nothing wrong with a game that doesn't have combat and is more collaborative in style... but D&D is not a good game system to do it with (you want one of the various narrativist rules-lite systems).
I wouldn't try to run a game like that if you aren't comfortable with it, though. Maybe convince someone else to run?
Have you considered "The Wild Beyond the Witchlight"? I am running it for a combat-adverse group and it's very fun. I do miss combat sometimes, but it has helped stretch my DM creativity. You can lean into the puzzles, mysteries, and role playing. Now if that doesn't sound fun for you as a DM, that's your prerogative of course but you should check out the module just in case.
I’d echo wild beyond the witchlight to give them options and try a combat light official variant(I think future modules will have . However, if you aren’t doing combat at all that’s a lot of rules overhead and classes you don’t need.
What do they enjoy? I had a great one shot on monster of the week(which is really really easy to pick up and they effectively world build with you) , call of Cthulhu doesn’t need fighting just a lot of running away. Arguably do they just want a catch-up / board game or is it the combat is too samey(in which case pathfinder 2 is good for dynamic interesting combat but has lots of rules overhead and I suspect they are wanting to step back).
There are other TTRPGs that focus more on the RP without the combat. Those systems would suit them far better.( I Mean the vast majority of the rules of DND is running combat). I think it's called Fate.
The thing to keep in mind is that you too, are a player in a game, but you also a kind of host for the game. Your game experience happens before and after the game in the processes of game management. It doesn't really matter what the game system is. What matters is that you are okay with any changes they want.
If you don't want to integrate some changes, then by all means, let them know. It is okay to just say that's not the sort of game you want to run or, that might be the type of game someone else would like to run and, you'd be willing to be a player but not a GM for such a game. If you otherwise like the group, then that would be a good solution.
"That's interesting, but in that sort of game I'd rather play than GM. How about someone else run a game?"
"Not only that but they've asked to have greater influence over how I DM."
That part is scary. DMing is already a lot of prep work. Very much a labor of love. You- "you" need to enjoy what you are running. So from a long-term DM (40+ years), just walk away, run if you have to.
I’ll give your table the respect of assuming they have sincere reasons for asking to have no combat. Others have already said that D&D isn’t a great fit for such a game (I concur), but I’d find it a difficult game to run for any system I know. Not only because most RPGs dedicate a lot of structure to combat, but more fundamentally because the risk of combat is a major source of tension in so many plots. Even political intrigue or mysteries. If players are confident going in that they won’t face any combat, it they can not only ignore preparing for such things (classes, equipment, spells, tactics), they can act in ways that wouldn’t make sense if violence were an option. It feels like another way to take away agency by removing consequences.
I’m sure there are ways to build a campaign like that yet avoid my concerns, but it feels like a high bar for the DM. And if they are also wanting to tell you how to do that job? It may not be the right table for you in that role, friend or no.
If you want to give it a shot anyway, I might offer “It sounds like you all have a clearer idea of how a game like that would work than I do. How about if one of you takes the screen and runs a short campaign like you’re describing. That will help me see what you want and maybe expose some things we’d need to house rule to make it work.”
If they go for it, play things straight, don’t sabotage anything. But take notes of what bothers you or what you’d have troubles with as DM, so you can talk about it as a learner.
Tharn Redeye - Half-orc Fighter - Heroes of Wildemount
Kellen Belladar - Human Cleric - Troubles in the Wildwood: Blackthorn
Brin Rainblade - Human Barbarian - The Great Orca Dungeon
There are plenty of systems that are capable of handling it, but running that sort of campaign is a fairly specific skill that isn't all that similar to DMing a typical D&D campaign. I was serious about 'let someone else run it'; that will both give you a sense of how to do that sort of thing, and whether you actually want to try.
Quick background on me I've been playing since the original basic set... my first DM was my minister at Culver Military Academy in 1981 and I have mostly DM'd through junior high, high school, college and in my professional life though I am playing now with friends up the east coast on Foundry as a player.
My initial thoughts are somewhat snide... along the lines of "this isn't strawberry shortcake & my little ponies"
I'd hear them out on what they are looking for... political intrigue, heist like the new keys to the golden vault, etc. and if their suggestions are reasonable and you are going to enjoy the challenge and it will be fun for you go for it... but if it is going to be outside what you're comfortable with or too much work or just not fun for you... then let them know why and let them play with another DM or to give up this idea of no combat with you as DM or some other compromise.
If they are miserable with combat... then they need to maybe play a different DM or RP that caters more to what they are looking for. Funny the line about no combat and also more influence over how you campaign... isn't that more influence in and of itself. Seems a little like ordering a cheeseburger without any cheese, bun or meat patty but with lettuce and tomato... maybe just order a salad instead.
Also look at what you are doing as a DM... are they more RP and you are setting up a murder hobo campaign where it is all combat to combat without much interaction like a game of Diablo leading them to the extreme opposite of wanting "no combat." like a game of Clue.
None of this means or suggests you have to stop being friends. Could even, if they find a DM, or if one of them wants to DM then you join as a player and see if you like it.
So, they just want to come over and roll play and change the world you created? What would happen if this world everyone collaborated on was raided? Would they fight for it or quit? What if a dragon attacked, ate half of a farmers livestock and tunneled into some nearby hills easily accessed through some secret tunnels that labyrinth towards a dungeon like lair on the beast? If they don't want to protect this make-believe place where they roll play and do something else, THEY ARE LITERALLY REFUSING TO PLAY DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!!! You should kill off their characters meticulously, methodically, joyfully and find some wild people that want to play the game your father taught you.
Every time man creates something new, improved and fool proof, nature comes out with a new fool.
Again, D&D doesn't directly support this. But something like Cypher System provides ways for the players to interject and change the narrative.
Greater influence over how you DM, makes you their puppet.
If they do not want to play the game you want to run, have one of them run they game they want to play. That way, you get to sit back and be a player.
Old-fashioned or Old School DMs run the games they want to run, and players either play, or don't.
Yikes. My kids (12 and 15, and nephew 8) get bored when there’s no combat. It’s really hard to please everyone when I’m the DM and the players are the kids and my wife and sister. Even my wife prefers having things to fight. My sister and son do most of the role playing…