Non Combat: How To Make It Practical

Well, sorry for jumping down your throat. I think maybe the moral of the story is that you need just as many mechanics as are necessary to keep you and your players happy and engaged. That number might be zero, for combat or non combat.

I've had a spark of an idea for a Cold War/atomic age espionage game for a while now - I've never had the time or energy (or overwhelming interest) to think about how it might actually be implemented, but maybe this is a moment to try and figure it out as an example of how something like that might work.

I think that GUMSHOE may still be of interest to you as an example of how to radically re-imagine rules for a specific genre. There may not be anything that's specifically useful, but again, it's a mechanics system that treats combat as auxiliary to investigation, rather than vice versa (which, in my opinion, is more typical, even in other "investigation" systems).

But you clearly largely weren't curious what other ppl had to say. You've been, at least in part, negative toward just about every single person who has taken time from their life to share information with you. I don't think you've given a false impression, I think you've given derision and condescension that makes it hard for ppl to talk to you.

@Santouche, Thanks for your recommendation. I have a backlog of systems that I need to look into, but I only have so much room in my head for a person's complete and published work. That's why I tend to seek out individual concepts instead. I don't think you were "jumping down (my) throat" at all. While I have regrettably little experience with the cold war era, that sort of project is definitely something I'd be open to discussing.

@emsquared, If I wasn't curious, why would I start this thread? I put the hard work in to craft a discussion topic because I wanted to hear what people had to say, and get a conversation rolling for other people that also want an answer to the same question. My intention was not to be negative. In my view, my response to your earlier post was thorough, positive, and presented several opportunities to continue healthy discussion based on the material you provided. As for my responses to other people, they are free to speak their minds if I have offended them, but that is between me and those people.

Howdy! This thread is 6 years old but I'd like to hop in anyways. As a disclaimer, I have played DnD several times and also felt like combat dominated the game and was unpleasant. Shortly after, I switched to PbtA systems and never looked back. Now I'm a GM with a good bit of experience under my belt and I don't shy away from combat like I used to (although I'm currently running an IRL campaign which featured a dungeon that has no combat. It was a bit of a challenge, but I'd say it was my most powerful and impactful session so far). To address your question, I think there are several mechanical reasons why combat is important in DnD, and there are different mechanics that would make other things more prevalent in your game. First off is the fact that a separate combat system exists. Since these rules are different from climbing a wall or picking a lock, combat will feel special. In fact, if combat were a single roll like all the other skill checks, it wouldn't be special at all. When I run a game, I insist on using a unified action resolution mechanic, where combat uses the same checks and skills as non-combat. This encourages players to try other things like stealth, diplomacy, trickery, or retreat instead of just fighting. The other major issue I have is initiative and turn order. During regular play, we stick with a character until their actions reach the logical ending, then we switch to the next character. However, in combat, each character only gets one action and a bonus action, so players are less likely to "waste" the action on something other than an attack, especially if it is less effective (see unified action resolution mechanism). Even worse, trying something larger often means that you don't see meaningful results for several rounds, which can mean an hour of real time; meanwhile, simply attacking gives you the gratification of dealing immediate damage with immediate, quantifiable results. Combat without initiative or turns encourages players to take bigger or longer actions, which encourages things that are not just basic attacks. On a practical level, combats in DnD can be long, taking up the bulk of a session. I personally hate this and find it to be a major waste of my time. Combat can be short, even a single roll. I prefer to use a clock (see Apocalypse World) to limit the number of rounds for combat. I like to set the clock at 3ish ticks, allowing me to control exactly how long combat lasts (I prefer 15-20 minutes at most). Even better, tell your players what happens when the clock runs out, and make it something they are desperate to stop by any means. This will keep the tension high and encourage creative solutions that are not just "I attack with my sword." Using this GM style, combat is fast, exciting, and not the sole focus of the game.