So, I'm a pretty new player, but I'm hoping to put together a one shot or two and DM them.
Anyway, I'm wondering do people get bored with a long-shot with little combat? Like, myself, combat can be fun, but I can just as much enjoy games that have no combat.
Like, my one-shot idea is more mystery focused with the combat been choice-related rather than combat just for the sake of combat. Like, it would be perfectly possible to go through without any combat at all, depending on player choices and how they go about solving the mystery.
I'm a little worried if ending it with zero combat might disappoint some players.
I think that fully depends on the composition of the party.
Something to keep in mind; most of the attributes of classes/subclasses are combat related. I would say to just make sure you don't ignore or not allow for the opportunity to allow players to use the abilities their characters have.
Ultimately, I think you should discuss this in a sort of session zero, or on get in touch with them beforehand to pitch the idea.
I think one-shots are a lot harder, because you're trying to fit basically everything into one session. I've done only one and it was somewhat stressful, and ran way longer than I wanted it to, and we didn't even finish. ^.^
I think that fully depends on the composition of the party.
Something to keep in mind; most of the attributes of classes/subclasses are combat related. I would say to just make sure you don't ignore or not allow for the opportunity to allow players to use the abilities their characters have.
Ultimately, I think you should discuss this in a sort of session zero, or on get in touch with them beforehand to pitch the idea.
I think one-shots are a lot harder, because you're trying to fit basically everything into one session. I've done only one and it was somewhat stressful, and ran way longer than I wanted it to, and we didn't even finish. ^.^
Cheers. Yeah, I'll make sure I won't actively avoid combat if their choices push that way. How about non-plot related encounters? Like, won't they feel out of place if I throw in a random encounter or battle for the sake of it which has no bearing on the plot and story?
Making it clear it could have little combat at the start is a good suggestion, I should have really thought of that myself haha.
I've got the basic idea for a longer campaign. Gonna start with a simple mystery one shot first because it's my first time DMing. I figure I can get a feel for what worked, what didn't work easier with a few one shots than jumping straight into a longer, more complicated story.
I wouldn't stress it very much, if the players want combat they'll find it.
That said, D&D has war gaming at its very core, the game being built on the backbone of combat and survival mechanics. When the majority of players roll up characters it's for the idea that combat will happen, most of the stats are designed for it. Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is a really good example of an adventure that is focused on plot and intrigue. You can play much of the module without any combat happening, and even with the combat present, it may be possible to avoid much of it. However, there are still some combat encounters that cannot be avoided and that's on purpose. Minimizing the amount of combat is fine, but removing it completely will, almost assuredly, have your players finding a reason to fight instead of sneak, talk, or otherwise avoid it.
Training: They have to fight a few rounds (no lethal damage is dealt or healed immediately by a "medic") to prove they are capable to get the "main job". This can be a fight against some dummies or a rival party (think of it like a TNG holo deck fight or the training room the X-Men have)
Distraction Fight: To sneak past some "guards" two or three players stage a fight. They must make the fight interesting (deception & performance rolls with advantage or disadvantage, depending on the imagination of the players)
Time is running out fights: The fight has a limiting factor, like a bridge slowly collapsing or a magical barrier making the battleground smaller each combat round
Environment fights: The party has to fight in an interesting environment, like on a scaffolding, on floating platforms or with lots of difficult terrain.
I have played in campaigns with sessions completely without combat, which can be fun too (just watch some shopping episodes of critical role or when they to stuff on a market/fair). Many horror games do not involve a lot of combat, because investigators are simply no match against an eldrich horror from beyond.
I think a session zero is a good place to put down some balance for the "pillars" of combat, exploration and interaction. If your friends know, that no every encounter should be solved with a fight, they can tell you how they feel about it and how they would like to play in that kind of campaign.
IMO, a one-shot needs to be a lot more structured / railroady than an ongoing campaign for it to be fun. Otherwise you run the risk of getting a shopping episode as your one-shot.
Drop them in somewhere they've already accepted a quest and started off, either they're tracking a quarry, or arrived somewhere to investigate some specific goings-on. They need to achieve a few fairly straightforward goals (with some combat encounters along the way) before proceeding to the showdown with the baddie to achieve their goal for the session. Hooray, they return to town victorious to turn in their quest for XP and loot. Or something...
A mystery can work, but everyone needs to know ahead of time, and you'll probably still have some sort of action-based encounter along the way. (A chase / pursuit, escape the building before a big nasty trap goes off, etc.)
This edition is built around the idea of "3 pillars", which are social interaction, exploration, and combat. If you remove combat, you remove around a third from each character, and some might end up being more impacted than others.
Combat is probably the main source of spell spending, so no combat mean casters will be able to spend a lot more spells on other situations.
On the other hand, classes like barbarian, fighters, and even rogue will find themselves severely limited by this choice (I feel like this would make a bard pretty much superior to the rogue in any way).
A low-combat campaign is entirely possible, but I think this system is based on the idea that combat will be at least semi-regular. There might be some other game systems out there that might be a better fit for what you want to do.
@TaipeiBlade I support your efforts to make one-shots or a campaign with minimal combat. I think that as long as your players are interested in storytelling as the main aspect and you make it clear to them the direction you are going before they finalize what characters they are playing as, it should be fine. I recommend having a thorough session 0 and incentivizing for problem solving or for making decisions based on their character's likely reaction than the player's likely reaction. If the players are really into it, next time add in stuff like player-defined personal goals and habits. Encourage them to role-play those and reward them for it with inspiration or better access to something they individually or collectively want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm a pretty new player, but I'm hoping to put together a one shot or two and DM them.
Anyway, I'm wondering do people get bored with a long-shot with little combat? Like, myself, combat can be fun, but I can just as much enjoy games that have no combat.
Like, my one-shot idea is more mystery focused with the combat been choice-related rather than combat just for the sake of combat. Like, it would be perfectly possible to go through without any combat at all, depending on player choices and how they go about solving the mystery.
I'm a little worried if ending it with zero combat might disappoint some players.
I think that fully depends on the composition of the party.
Something to keep in mind; most of the attributes of classes/subclasses are combat related. I would say to just make sure you don't ignore or not allow for the opportunity to allow players to use the abilities their characters have.
Ultimately, I think you should discuss this in a sort of session zero, or on get in touch with them beforehand to pitch the idea.
I think one-shots are a lot harder, because you're trying to fit basically everything into one session. I've done only one and it was somewhat stressful, and ran way longer than I wanted it to, and we didn't even finish. ^.^
Cheers. Yeah, I'll make sure I won't actively avoid combat if their choices push that way. How about non-plot related encounters? Like, won't they feel out of place if I throw in a random encounter or battle for the sake of it which has no bearing on the plot and story?
Making it clear it could have little combat at the start is a good suggestion, I should have really thought of that myself haha.
I've got the basic idea for a longer campaign. Gonna start with a simple mystery one shot first because it's my first time DMing. I figure I can get a feel for what worked, what didn't work easier with a few one shots than jumping straight into a longer, more complicated story.
I wouldn't stress it very much, if the players want combat they'll find it.
That said, D&D has war gaming at its very core, the game being built on the backbone of combat and survival mechanics. When the majority of players roll up characters it's for the idea that combat will happen, most of the stats are designed for it. Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is a really good example of an adventure that is focused on plot and intrigue. You can play much of the module without any combat happening, and even with the combat present, it may be possible to avoid much of it. However, there are still some combat encounters that cannot be avoided and that's on purpose. Minimizing the amount of combat is fine, but removing it completely will, almost assuredly, have your players finding a reason to fight instead of sneak, talk, or otherwise avoid it.
Options for combat types:
I have played in campaigns with sessions completely without combat, which can be fun too (just watch some shopping episodes of critical role or when they to stuff on a market/fair). Many horror games do not involve a lot of combat, because investigators are simply no match against an eldrich horror from beyond.
I think a session zero is a good place to put down some balance for the "pillars" of combat, exploration and interaction. If your friends know, that no every encounter should be solved with a fight, they can tell you how they feel about it and how they would like to play in that kind of campaign.
Make sure you and the players agree ahead of time that you are running a mystery game, and they prepare characters accordingly.
Or, if that is not the kind of game they want to play, add mystery elements to whatever that kind of game is.
I would not add combat just for the sake of fighting things.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
IMO, a one-shot needs to be a lot more structured / railroady than an ongoing campaign for it to be fun. Otherwise you run the risk of getting a shopping episode as your one-shot.
Drop them in somewhere they've already accepted a quest and started off, either they're tracking a quarry, or arrived somewhere to investigate some specific goings-on. They need to achieve a few fairly straightforward goals (with some combat encounters along the way) before proceeding to the showdown with the baddie to achieve their goal for the session. Hooray, they return to town victorious to turn in their quest for XP and loot. Or something...
A mystery can work, but everyone needs to know ahead of time, and you'll probably still have some sort of action-based encounter along the way. (A chase / pursuit, escape the building before a big nasty trap goes off, etc.)
If you do run a low-combat campaign, I’d suggest using milestone xp, or they’ll probably take forever to level.
This edition is built around the idea of "3 pillars", which are social interaction, exploration, and combat. If you remove combat, you remove around a third from each character, and some might end up being more impacted than others.
Combat is probably the main source of spell spending, so no combat mean casters will be able to spend a lot more spells on other situations.
On the other hand, classes like barbarian, fighters, and even rogue will find themselves severely limited by this choice (I feel like this would make a bard pretty much superior to the rogue in any way).
A low-combat campaign is entirely possible, but I think this system is based on the idea that combat will be at least semi-regular. There might be some other game systems out there that might be a better fit for what you want to do.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
@TaipeiBlade I support your efforts to make one-shots or a campaign with minimal combat. I think that as long as your players are interested in storytelling as the main aspect and you make it clear to them the direction you are going before they finalize what characters they are playing as, it should be fine. I recommend having a thorough session 0 and incentivizing for problem solving or for making decisions based on their character's likely reaction than the player's likely reaction. If the players are really into it, next time add in stuff like player-defined personal goals and habits. Encourage them to role-play those and reward them for it with inspiration or better access to something they individually or collectively want.