Why is it a "requirement" for every session to have a combat or equivalent?

If you want storytelling and a sense of atmosphere, go to the next table over and write a book.

Personally I play a system because I want to use a system, and the system generally is combat based. It's the sin of actually playing a game, if I want to free form I can find free form play by post or chat room but generally doesn't hold my interest as I can fucking write half ass stories that scratch the same itch without dealing with the really horrible things that happen with random people online.

You're a bunch of pansies.

>Personally I play a system because I want to use a system, and the system generally is combat based.
Stop playing D&D.

Wow. First off that makes any character who put a single point into combat stats completely useless. Second, people actually like combat and your group much be full of complete pussies if not a single one of them can handle an NPC rolling to hit their character. By God your sessions must be boring.

Oh look. It's the guy who tells everyone violence is wrong and kills any combat focused character in the first five minutes of a session. How is it shoving your political beliefs down everyone's throat?

>Storytelling and a sense of atmosphere is the most important aspect of RPG's bar none.
Play freeform then. If you take combat out of an RPG (Role Playing Game) you've effectively removed the Game and turned it into a slice of life RP.

Dubs+quads of go fuck yourself

>strawman
Just stop playing D&D, you simpleton.

If you want to sit down with your B-ros, slam back some brewskis, and roll BIG numbers, then get off this board and go back to /v/ where you belong.

First off, the whole groups is committed to this. We all have some points in combat. but no one is fully invested into combat. We're not optimally built for either. And yes. our characters are pansies. But we've been combat freaks in like 20 campaigns. Also, it's fun confusing the ST by converting people instead.

Must be boring desu. Reminds me of that anime genre where nothing ever happens except for the last episode. What's that called again?

We have fun.

STOP replying to ths SHITTY BAIT

>j-just one reply!

NO

Okay. 4 chan is converting my usage of the word desu (T.B.H.) into desu. What the hell.
How?

Investigations, figuring out how we can solve a situation, coming up with interesting lies and blackmail. Our enemies are generally very subtle or high in power. The people we are fighting against is actually the ones paying our wage as of now.
Meanwhile we are convincing a rebellion to get allies from other places and setting up the contacts, getting powertful artifacts from the enemy and getting into positions of power to later make a bloodless coup.

The duplicity, plotting and interparty banter is great fun.

My group actually avoids combat they like having IC roleplay and working with NPCS, the down side of that is they take things seriously because combat is pretty much risking your life and that's the main reason they avoid it.

Do you know the fucking horrors of taking 3 sessions to resolve an argument with an NPC because they'll talk with each other and try and determine the pros and cons of skill checks or just try to weasel their way in with general talk. Now it was an important thing, I actually had a few things that was suppose to go on with that character but they stuck to one fucking point and wanted to get it "right". I couldn't just have them roll a damn die and move on cause that's killing role playing, I couldn't just give it to them cause what's the fucking point of that shit, and I couldn't just deny them and move on cause that's just railroading bullshit. Took 3 sessions and they didn't get what they want but they got in a direction they were happy with. 3 sessions later they were wondering why they weren't further along with shit looking at their notes and couldn't remember anything from those sessions sides "Oh we talked to this NPC about something". At the time they made what they were doing out to be more important than it was because it affected another NPC they liked but the scene itself wasn't what kept them going on.

Combat takes what 30 minutes and if it isn't cake walk with generic enemies they tend to remember specifics, two hours of doing role play tends to get they did something. It's so fucking disheartening realizing there's a lot of actual effort going into going through these motions that no one remembers.

Sounds like a grand conspiracy plan that makes no fucking sense and is more masturbatory power fantasy because "lol we can do this in real life if we tried!". How many of your characters have faux Japanese names and their players put deepness into that?

It's annoying as a DM when one player wants to minimize the time spent in combat and there's another one who zones out whenever there isn't combat going on.

From a short summary of 15 sessions, yeah, I don't think I could summarize it without it sounding crazy. And isnt RPGs power fantasies, because our lives are dull and meaningless and playing is a nice escape? Why do you play?

>hey, I have to go in two hours, I want to kill some stuff, can we start the combat now?

Someone should explain him that this is not a damn video game. There aren't levels with certain amount of goons, loot, and a single boss.
And this is a collaborative game, not some singleplayer asskissing. He fights when the party gets in a fighting situation.

What did he get? Did you skip fuckeverything and went to combat?

Be clearer from the get go what type of game it will be. Get everyone on the same level of expectations

That's reasonable though. If it isn't combat then the fighter and barbarian are just sitting in the corner with their thumbs firmly planted up their assets because any time they try to contribute the GM calls them to roll -5 on charisma or get raped.

I hate filler combats that exist just to drain player resources. One of my biggest fucking gripes with Pathfinder. In our current campaign, the GM seems obliged to shove a pointless resource drain combat in right before a major, actually-plot relevant encounter. And then we won't even get to enjoy the major encounter that session as that session will end right after combat, since combat in Pathfinder is such a dragging slugfest. Combine that with our campaign's sessions being annoyingly infrequent and it's enough to make me tempted to ask the GM if we can just freeform it, since the combat is starting to become an obstacle to fun rather than a source of it.

Not that user, but what the fuck are you trying to prove Virt? Just stay banned.

I hate sessions that are just
>Talk to noble
>Now talk to other noble
>Talk to him again
>Talk to other people
>Talk again
>Now go to noble again
>Now look through one bedroom
>Now go to noble with findings
>Now go arrest other noble
>Now get reward
>>Not like I built my character with combat in mind, I don't mind that I could contribute literally nothing the entire session. Don't complain when I get on my phone while the bard/sorcerer does everything this session because I'm obviously not needed.

>masturbatory power fantasy
for christs sake user, it's exalted. that's a given.
you just sound butthurt that someone else is having fun the 'wrong' way

And then maybe this particular campaign isn't for you.
Or you could convince the rest of the group that murder all of them is the right solution. There are solutions to those kinds of problems you know. I know it's frustrating being stuck with a character that's not usable for the problems at hand.

But you're not having fun. You're just writing a book.

GOOD! You're doing well. You're very clearly remembering that IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ENJOY SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT.

You belong here.

>Why is it a "requirement" for every session to have a combat or equivalent?
It isn't.

People like books. That's why they are selling. It's also easier to write a campaign than it is to write a book. Mostly because you have people with you, you have friends doing something all of you enjoy with you.

I see people say this all the time, but what is it about another system (non-DnD) that makes combat any more interesting? Mechanically, it boils down to roll to do thing no matter the system. So the GM comes in to make that part immersive, interesting, unique, part of a story/a story in intself. If he doesn't, it's boring no matter the system. I say this as a GM who has run many shitty combat seasions and some great ones.
IMO, it boils down to context and environment when making a combat stand out. It is hard, it can take hours to plan the stats/tactics/spell slots of NPCs that might die before they get to take an action. But hey GMing is about you putting in the effort.

In retrospect, fights would be less boring if they weren't FORCED, as in there was a way around them. Obviously not always, but for one who dislikes combat its nice to know there is possibly an alternate route.

If your character would be bored with it too, just make him go downtown and do something else

...and why can't that be fun? You know people do that for fun, right? That some writers enjoy their job?

Do you also know that some people treat TTRPGs as co-operative story-building experiences, as some of the writers of the TTRPGs in question intended them to be?

Do you also know that you're a raging faggot who is obviously trolling, because you cannot possibly be this stupid or close-minded and still have the capability of using a keyboard?

>And then maybe this particular campaign isn't for you.
Really?
>I know it's frustrating being stuck with a character that's not usable for the problems at hand.
Seems like you don't.

Perfect way to solve this problem. Just talk your way out of everything, leave the party saying you want to do something, and then have the GM throw a combat at them that wipes the party because you, the only one species for combat, was rubbed out of the party.

>Why is it a "requirement" for every session to have a combat or equivalent?
Have you tried not playing D&D?

I know it's a meme, but seriously. D&D, and a bunch of the games directly inspired by it (i.e. a fuckton of them) has a very large focus on combat in some fashion. Yes, this includes OSR.

If you want to play a game that doesn't expect combat every session, IMHO you should probably go try out some non-D&D system? Probably one with more of a social element. Dunno if I can give any recommendations without knowing what you're actually after in a game, though.
Also, it's a bit tricky if you still want combat sometimes but I'm sure that there's something out there.

It's the wordfilter. baka desu senpai.

How do you guys handle this?
Like, the wizard wants to go do his own shit cause he's not invested in saving/killing children, or the alchemist wants to go and browse the shops while the other 4 party members are trying to kill a dragon.
Do you just split the time between the groups and force the other groups to sit quietly doing nothing as they aren't near the current on-screen character?

I have seen it done where combat doesn't happen in every session. Most of the time it's just skill checks and roleplaying shenanighans, though I appreciate it.
Also, assuming this is D&D 3.pf we are talking about, you gotta give something for the fighter to do.

What else are combat monkeys gonna do then?

Generally you ask the player that's being a lone wolf to make a new character, find a reason to help the party, or leave.

It's a team game, and if you don't want to be on the team, then you're not going to play.

Going downtown to buy something while the rest of the party fucks around in a tavern is one thing, but just not wanting to work with the party for a major plot hook is you being a shit player.

>Do you just split the time between the groups and force the other groups to sit quietly doing nothing as they aren't near the current on-screen character?

Yep. But I limit it and skip back and forth if I can. If not, ppl go play Vidya for a few minutes while we handle it.

I have ran a game of AD&D since May and I think we had 3 encounters so far, it's really not a requirement

So basically you take out all the martials and tell them to create casters?

Awesome idea.

If there's one thing you want in a session, it's distracted players.

I haven't experienced partysplitting during dragon killing, but yeah in the cases of splits we split the time depending on need. Perhaps your character is just going for a stroll and there doesn't have to be something going on except for a little environmental description. I think a major thing is that it's good for the person who wasn't really interested in the dialogue because now he and his character has a proper excuse for not knowing what was said there.

Bad example on my part. As is I do what said. But I feel guilty when people need to stop playing, break immersion, and play on their phone/tablet/laptop.

Sometimes it's inevitable whether you want it or not. How would you handle it?

I think it has more to do with that people can figure out whats actualy going on in D&D with basic math. Moving to a bellcurved or dice pool system people actualy have to take probability and statistics classes to have a fucking clue. The same thing happens in d100 systems becuase people "always miss" when they know they have an 80% chance to hit and the enemy has some 20% chance to dodge. The same exact probability coudl be summed up in a dice pool system and they'll think their character is great becuase they have no fucking clue how well they are doing.

It's just a lot of illusions and ignorance, they can point to D&D (and really all probability on the tin single dice systems) and go the dice rolls ultimatly ruin the system. Then point to multipe dice and say the probability curve makes the system that much better and more realisitc, at that moment it could be exactly equal to what they were doing under other system to get successes but they don't know that, they refuse that the probability of success between the two systems could ever be similar.

On a personal note I see the like of dice pool systems when you can get a ton of dice at creation and rarely fail a single task, I just think some of these people won't admit they just want to always succeed and the amount of dice they roll puts them on a curve where that's the standard. Same with 3d6 systems once you pass a threshold where you only fail on rolling 3~5 you're golden.

I've been on both sides of the fence, and a game with no story and all combat AND vice-versa is just bad. You need a good balance of both.

To counter your argument, why not just read a novel if all you care about is storytelling and a sense of atmosphere. Your actions and input as a PC feel ultimately meaninglessly because there is no real conflict/consequences without combat.

Usually by doing what you do in real life, keeping it short and concise. Doesn't work in a game where you are trying to write a shared fiction book cause everyone wants to hog as much page space as possible.

I just had a session where the players were rewarded with a festival for their efforts. They are all pretty new to TTRPGs. Two enjoyed it and embraced it. However, the other two were not into it at all. One literally sat around not celebrating and shirking any interaction I tried to involve him with.

The other went to look for someone who basically gave him all the info he could have gotten about this potential quest. He rolled shit to try and find him, and then just gave up, looking in random spots not even considering RP at all. So it seems like I'm having the opposite problem. Not sure how I can do RP sessions in the future if one refuses to get involved and the other just wants to progress the story along magically, RP be damned.

Do you have to roll a diplomacy check every-time you talk to someone? lol

Even then Fighter/Barb at least have intimidate, if your sitting with your thumbs up your ass outside of combat then that's a personal problem.

Is this trolling? How about we're doing a survival game where different checks and skill sets are needed? Criminal investigation? Political intrigue? Thievery?

Doesn't matter if you try to keep it short and concise as a DM if you have a subset of players who like to hold long discussions about their next course of action while a single player or another subset of players would rather get on with the action. Of course, they should communicate this to the other players with their characters, but it doesn't always help.

It's not a requirement. It is however, one of the major reasons I'm into the hobby. If you remove the "game" aspect of roleplaying games, you're just a bunch of poofters sitting in a room freeforming. I want to tell and contribute to a tale of adventure, danger and excitement, every single time I play a roleplaying game. Intrigue-heavy games are a total bore to me, personally. Five guys sitting at a table, everyone trying to outsmug the other by playing out pleasantries with poorly hidden innuendos is basically my anti-fun, mostly because it's just wankery, and I prefer to wank in private.
Also, from my own experience, most GMs that prefer talking and social play just want to tell you THEIR story. You can only affect minor things, and in the end, it doesn't even matter (cue Linkin Park), because your character is just a bystander, the things that actually matter is handled between NPC's, and the GM is so desperate to play out his masterpiece in front of you your character is never in any kind of real risk, since there doesn't exist a fail state.

Note: I'm sure people have fun with these kind of """"adventures""""", but please, let's be clear about what kind of playstyle you prefer so I'm not stuck in your games, and you aren't stuck with me, and everyone wins.

If you tell me you insult the Duke's mother and spit on his floor, he's going to act to make you pay for it.

And when you're just a man with some knives he's going to have you arrested so he can beat you, water board you, hang you outside for a week to dry, then repeat.

Don't be stupid next time.

Majority wins for the most part, splitting off to do something entirely different means you pay the price of sitting around with nothing to do.

Splitting away from the party while ahereing tot he task at hand activates a sort of down time system like in Darkest Dungeon.

I give them 1 hour each and run it like a quest thing. Each player must account for what they do in the hour, default being them resting which can restore some HP and treat fatigue. Other stuff like preparing a spell slot accounts for the whole hour while more vague things like scouting ahead, setting up traps, maintaining armor/weapons, etc. take increments of like 1 min, 10 min, 30 min, etc.

>and everyone wins.
No, you proliferate bad ides to new players and thus there's a growing tumor of terrible players who will shit up any game they are a part of. Just because you have enough self awareness to quarantine yourself doesn't mean the people you encourage will and continue to drag down the hobby to dice rolling "lol I kill dude good!" bullshit. You had your time, and it was awful, and you fucks were rightfully looked down upon but now the nature of gaming has to move on and evolve.

Now this is a reasonable point from the pro-combat argument. I do get the feeling you've played with railroading GMs.
For social interactions to matter you need it to fail, you need choices to matter you need multiple groups the players can chose to ally with and you need to accept that the favorite NPC might get poisoned because the players hated him.

>there can only be one type of pen and paper roleplaying going on at any given time
'no'

>builds a character that can fulfill only on function
>complains that he can't do a lot of things
It's almost like you shouldn't make characters that are a one-trick pony.

*one function

Feels like you missed the entirety of his point.

One-trick pony or not his post seemed to be highlighting how monotonous games can be without combat.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

There can be multiple, just like in an area you can have multiple ruler ships. That said the ruler ships are a bunch of warlord barbarians and the single group of people trying to have an actual civilization.

without a comabt or equivalent system, you are pretty much doing a cyoa book where the GM narrates. it doesnt allow the characters actions to truly shape the world. It will always come downt to "choose A, B or C" rather than, "well, you went and killed the country's king, you are now on the run from the entire guard, what choices do you WANT to make?"

You do know that D&D is not the only system ever made to use combat right?

Your'e wrong user, only one group is asking for actual meaningful roleplaying with character interaction and stories. The other wants their rollplaying to be full of meaningless combat and epic loots to kill more shit.

>One-trick pony or not his post seemed to be highlighting how monotonous games can be without combat.
The argument wasn't against combat. It was against pointless filler combat that exists only to chew up resources and waste time. I'm fine with combat when it has weight to it, like a boss battle or a mass combat at the culmination of a siege. What I don't care about is spending two hours fighting goblins that pose no real threat and are just there to make sure the wizard has a few less spells to cast on the boss. Filler combats could be made fun with clever scenario design, but I've come across few GMs who would bother putting in the effort to make them interesting. They just throw a t-rex or a bunch of hooded thugs at the party, have them die and then call it for a night. It's just a boring delay, like the filler episode of a bad anime.

>You're wrong user, only one group is asking for "actually meaningful" roleplaying with character interaction and stories. The other wants their "actually meaningful" rollplaying with epic combat and loot to further test the ability of their character.

FTFY

>meaningful interactions
"I spent 10 minutes talking to the flower lady down at the market about how my family back in [background story] grew Lupins in a certain shade of mauve, shame you can't import them to the capital, they had the most mollifying effect on bla bla bla" while your other 4 group members sit around, dick in hand. Marvellous.

I had plenty of "social" sessions.
Most of them were nothign eventful fucking happened. It's there's nothing eventful or interesting enough I rather have a combat than "your characters sit around their base and just chill and nothing happens", not that's a bad thing, helps for character development or get to know other PCs a bit better, but 3 sessions in a row of that made me sick, I want adventure, exploration damnit

Other systems don't suffer this issue to the degree that D&D does. In Fantasy Craft my Soldier (the not!Fighter class for those unfamiliar with the system) is as useful in-combat as they are out of it. They have skills like Sense Motive and Intimidate that they use in combat to anticipate and threaten enemies effectively, but can also be used in social scenarios. They also have military renown that they can use to gain roleplay favours and non-combat mechanical benefits, like getting a convoy to help transport the party across a dangerous road.

Meanwhile when I play a Fighter in 3.X, I'm basically only ever relevant when it's time for smacking kobolds.

Well, the tumour isn't really growing relative to the whole population of TTRPG players unless the kind of game I prefer is actually more popular. And what if you just specify what kind of game you like to run, wouldn't that keep the kind of assclowns you hold so much resentment over away? I'm sure they'd prefer not to sit around a table playing "lol I persuade dude good" bullshit. I'm going to be honest here, I don't really know what kinds of games are more popular these days, since I just play games with my group of real friends and acquaintances, and we don't really interact much with online games or whatever, since that's pretty gay, but action-oriented games seem to always have an audience when you look at Veeky Forums. I'm sure we're not going away. So get used to it :^)

I've actually wanted to take a closer look at Fantasy Craft.

In general question, what other fantasy systems really worth a damn are there? The selection where I am is poor. Looking for reccomendations. RuneQuest? GURPS?

That's a personal problem though, what you see as "pointless filler combat that exists only to chew up resources and waste time" can be applied to the argument in favor of RP and no combat at all.

As in his point of his post (from my understanding) was basically saying "pointless filler interactions that exists only to chew up resources and waste time" exists too.

You don't need even need resources and everything is a waste of time when you ironically enough build a two-trick pony. (Typically someone with a lot of skill points and casting like a Bard.)

As I understand from the thread so far "filler" comes from a lack of understanding in the group and what they want out of the game.

It's such a versatile system its pretty hard to always find the right fit between interesting and engaging encounters and actually using the system effectively as a story-telling medium.
Part of the solution would be to try other systems when you don't feel like rollplaying or roleplaying.

>le not playing D&D meme
Gee have you tried playing 5e and stop shitposting? backgrounds and proeficiencies are a thing.
Also be fucking creative
>K downtime in town, what do you do fighting dude
>I go challenge people to a fistfight for money
>I go work as a bouncer for this place
>I go gamble
>I go try and catch purse snatchers

A lot of the non-D&D systems tend to be designed appealing to a specific niche with their design, so it can be tricky to recommend systems. Some people hate Fantasy Craft for its heavy crunch while others love it. What sort of game design for you have a preference for user?

Man it's like diffrent people can have fun playing games differently...

Have you tried not playing DnD?

>The inquisitor looks at you from behind his desk. "Good job" he says and smiles and offers your payment.
>Jartin clenches his fist and says nothing. Thinking on his home that this man ruined for all time
>Liasa smiles back. "It's our pleasure to serve. We gave the heretics body to captain Jergal. he will make the corpse presentable for your viewing."
>"Presentable?" The inqusitor asks, curiously but suspicious.
>"Heh." Garner laughs, bringing the attention of the inquisitor to him. His history of of overviolence well known, but overblown as a suitable cover.
>"I see. Next time, you should bring it directly to me. Will save-
>"Yes, they would not let us through the gates with that mess."
>"Don't make a mess!" The inquisitor is angry now.
>"Garners skillset is indespensible sir."
Liasa rolls a manipulation check to convince the inquisitor that if this is the largest issue with this entire mission they are still the best agents he has. She rolls well.
>"Very well." He concedes.
>"This could've been avoided had we been given insignias, my lord." Jartin grunts. The group is shaken out of character, the inquisitor does not have patience for rudeness.
Jartin rolls diplomacy to make a claiom to get the insignias. He rolls shittily, as always.
>"No." The inquisitor says, his suspicion is back to normal. They have to work harder and more to gain thos badges for their plan to free the prisoners without reprisal from the imperium...

Or something like that. Social interactions can be meaningful.

Runequest (specifically rq6) and Gurps are both very good for more down to earth , lower power fantasy games. They have very detailed and varied combat systems, doubly so compared to D&D, so even if you only care about combat you have a lot of techniques and moves every combat. Feints , aiming for weak points, etc

That all is summed up as "The inquisitor thinks you could have done the job less messily, but rewards you as normal."

Combat isn't required. Compliance when my PC makes a request, however, is.

I'd get a lot more done in a session if motherfuckers would just drop their shit and walk out the door, but no, they gotta do it the hard way.

they can also be meaningless, like your example out of context. (potentially in context too)

And combat could be summed up with "The battle was hard fought but won."
The way the players acted had impact on how the plot went. They could've said worse things and the jig would be up and they all would be put into pison. The summary would be different then.

Or they could've made it better and gotten their badges. An entirely different summary.

The important thing is, the players choices matter.

the GMs role is to make the scenes matter. No matter the scene.

Yeah. And the player chooses to have a impactful combat and minimum filler dialogue that does nothing for the story beside waste fifteen minutes of everyone's time.

A good GM can make shopping for furniture for your character's house interesting.
A bad can make a fight in a volcano against your nemesis seem bland.

I wish I could do this with my group.

Here's how it would go down with my players.

>The inquisitor looks at you from behind his desk. "Good job" he says and smiles and offers your payment.
>jartin opens up his phone, thinking of all the anime he will watch when this is over.
>Liasa smiles back. "Okay mr. inquisitor dude, happy to helpya."
>"And the body?" the inquisitor asks, curiously, but suspicious.
>"Heh." Garner laughs, bringing the attention of the inquisitor to him. "Okay mr. bo-- DM is his name bob?"
>"The name he gave you is Bartimaeus"
>"Okay Mr. barry, you only told us to kill the heritics. The body is gonna cost you extra"
>"I see. Next time, you should bring it directly to me. Will save us some petty hag---"
>"Nocando mr. bart, you want that body, we gotta see some dollars first"
>The inquisitor is angry now, but also incredulous
>"Okay DM, I'm rolling to seduce him to get some extra gold"
>"You see them apples Mr. Bart? I just rolled a natural 20 on my seduction check. Now gird your loins."
>"Hold on guys, let's take this a bit slower here. The inquisitor is not so easily seduced"
>"WHAT?!?!" --- "But that's a natural 20!"
>"okay guys let's go huddle up in the next room where the DM can't hear. We have to discuss our plans now that the inquisitor basically revealed he's gay"

And queue 5 minutes of the group discussing how best to get extra gold from the inquisitor, or if they should just try to shoot him now.