Have you ever had an entire day of gaming that had NO combat whatsoever?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I ran a session last night which *almost* made the entire night with no combat. The combat turned out to be entirely unneccessary (and the PCs lost) but the stories from the roleplaying from this one session will carry the rest of the cmpaign from here on out. I even ran the combat in a very story optimized way rather than a "combat effective optimization" way. Instead of running in and swinging swords to the best they could do, NPCs bantered and stepped back for breathers, discussed tactics openly with the PCs (think Princess Bride) while both sides assessed if they wanted to continue fighting, etc. Oddly enough for an RPG, combat happened and no one died on either side. I had more fun as a DM than I have had in a long time.


I'm finding this whole discussion fascinating; as many on the boards know, I'm in five active campaigns (GM for three Pathfinder, player for one Pathfinder, player for one Runequest). I decided to work out my groups' numbers: Of the 14 people involved in those five campaigns, 8 of them greatly enjoy/would strongly prefer total noncombat sessions. 6 of them would get frustrated with a lack of combat.

So it really is a pretty fair balance, even in the groups I game with. The group that went 3 sessions with no combat whatsoever just happens to consist of four of the 'avoiding any combat is good' players.

Just thought I'd share. I find this whole thing interesting....


Yes and yes in many different games.

Though I did find "combat active" Monopoly much more interesting than "roleplaying-heavy Monopoly", but that was likely due to the boffers and RPing the Iron is much more challenging than RPing the dog. Combat active Illuminati almost involved the police. Again.

-TimD

Dark Archive

No, had an adventure that was pretty close (we had one minor combat at the end, one that took far too long for the GM to adjudicate). If that was the trend for the campaign I'd quit.

D&D for me needs a mix of all that, and including a couple of good combats for a typical 4 hour session.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I may have. Or may not. I really don't remember and don't care. I like both combat and non-combat. As a GM I generally plan for at least one combat encounter per session just because there's always at least one member of the group who starts to lose interest if he/she isn't able to beat up something.

This.

I'm with AD that it doesnt matter so much what the combat/noncombat ratio is, the creativity of the players and GM and the involvement, interest, and immersion in the story are what is important. A good GM will make an all-interaction OR all-combat session entertaining, a poor GM will fail at one, the other, or both, and a good blend overall is generally best recommended scenario.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

True a good balance depending on the group is necessary, though if it is a game that has alot of combat/ dice rolling for damage, I would be inclined to hand my sheet off to someone and read. The whole roll to hit, roll damage, you are hit, you take damage, roll to hit, roll to damage gets old for me. I could get a computer program to do that for me. We never really care to do alot of the combat maneuvers, grapple, trip or the like. Usually opting to keep things fast and simple when it revolves around combat so as to avoid loop holes and rules questions ultimately needing to be resolved by the DM.

But yes, combat does add a flavor to the game, and is great when used properly. Though I generally dont like to define my character by their damage output. Fights should have meaning, like something for a plot, why are the monsters we are fighting there? Not just filler or the random bandit group that we happen to get ambushed by on the road.

Is the game playable with very sparse combat, definitely. Is it enjoyable, easily, depending on your group. However, a game that is largely combat... I would rather play a video game as there is less number management to worry about.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Having non-combat sessions is EASY. Now having an entire session without combat or NPCs to interact with. That's tricky. When your entire party spends the session discussing a conundrum, or where they believe the campaign should go next arguing and disagreeing with each other but ultimately finishing up feeling like it was a great session and you as a GM didn't have to do a thing.

Liberty's Edge

@ DM aka Dudemeister

yes that would be a difficult task, and you would need really understanding, interested and mature players to make it work. A large degree of selflessness would be required to work that. If you have a group that is like that consider yourself lucky.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sgt Spectre wrote:

@ DM aka Dudemeister

yes that would be a difficult task, and you would need really understanding, interested and mature players to make it work. A large degree of selflessness would be required to work that. If you have a group that is like that consider yourself lucky.

I have a pool of about 20 players, currently in about 3 different groups and all of those groups are capable of that. I do consider myself very, very lucky.

I still take all the credit for those sessions though, because my ego hungers like Galactus.


We always have at least one battle in our current campaign session. Otherwise the players are disappointed they can't use any of their cool combat powers and magic items.

We are somewhat old school dungeon crawlers, but we do love to argue with town folk NPCs who think they can beat a female barbarian at arm wrestling. We also enjoy the occasional gambling bout until some smartass pushes our wizard into betting his scrolls of moderate healing in a card game and lose it all! Followed by a lot of laughing and heckling which led to more....you guessed it....combat! :-)

Liberty's Edge

LOL

well if everyone is happy with that go for it. Not enough happiness often in this world, find and enjoy it when you can.


I once ran a one shot that ended up having no combat. More than that, several times I, as the GM, was able to just leave the room while things continued to happen between the players. It was set up for them to basically debate and convince each other to obtain certain outcomes. All I had to do was answer some questions and play a few support cast NPCs.


No.

Had a lot of sessions where it was very combat LIGHT (1 or 2 minor encounters) but never with no combats.

My players don't enjoy being non-combatants mostly, except the Druid and Bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the time. The characters like the roleplaying aspects and each of them--including the beat stick has a developed character backstory that allows for investigation and socialization...the best was the knight and the scout having a philosophical discussion in character about feudalism and the limitations of it while the noble born mage was dealing with her mothers attempts to get her married off to one of the nobles at a dinner party. Love those kinds of session.


DGRM44 wrote:
We always have at least one battle in our current campaign session. Otherwise the players are disappointed they can't use any of their cool combat powers and magic items.

I think that's important. As long as the characters are given the ability to shine, you're doing it right.

If you have a character capable of amazing feats, but are seldom given the opportunity to use them, it's painful.

That's true if you have a character specced for stealth and intrigue that has to keep hiding in the back during a campaign with no diplomacy or subtlety, just as much as if you have a combat based character when the GM doesn't want you to fight anything.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
And did you enjoy it?

Yes and yes.

I've actually played in and DMed D&D sessions that had little to no dice rolling at all.

The Exchange

There is an excelent adventure in an excelent AP called "Savage Tides", the adventure itself being thee 3rd one - Sea Wyvren's Wake. During that adventure, which is all about sailing your ship deep into the sea in search of a place, we rarely ever rolled dice. Sure, once evrey 3 sessions there were some combat encounters, but there was a HUGE amount of time just enjoying the travel, interacting with people on the ship, and some cool monster encounters that weren't combat (roleplaying with maphits!). That adventure lasted something like 12 3.5 hours long sessions, so that's quit a bit of non combat stuff.


I have session without combat very often, eventhough we play only APs. I think it is easy to pull off with my player material who can came up with stuff as they go and create roleplaying encounters with each other and npc's. I know that all of my players don't like it as much as others but I mostly enjoy those sessions as we can focus to the main thing, story. Sometimes sessions without combat can really change things to come and once combat starts you can see how previous story focused gaming shows in combat as player's focus more on what their characters do than just rolling the dice and moving figs.


Just GMed the second session of an Exalted game, with the first one devoted to an introductory showdown with the Wyld Hunt. In my experience, a campaign tends to be coloured strongly by what happens in the first two or three sessions, so I wanted to give them something quite different for this one. It worked well, too, I would say they had fun.


I've done it many times in a story-heavy Ravenloft campaign I ran, that lasted almost 3 years. We had many sessions of non-combat antics and story-telling. I had to warn new players constantly that this was NOT a "hack and slash" campaign by any means, and if that was what they were looking for, they'd be disappointed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Does it count if we ended the session right before a combat was about to start so we could have enough time to play it out?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd say that about a quarter of game sessions in my current Runelords game have no combat at all. We once went 4 sessions an a row with no fighting. They have been doing a lot of investigating and interacting with NPCs. (Currently, they're on a side-quest in Kaer Maga, and are having a blast just exploring the city.) There was one completely ad-libbed session where the PCs were playing tourists sight-seeing in Magnimar-- including three hours of real time at the Lord-Mayor's Menagerie (a.k.a. the Magnimar City Zoo.) For some bizarre reason, the completely unplanned trip to the zoo as been one of the highlights of the campaign!

We have one young whipper-snapper who's just shy of 30, and the rest of us are well into our 40s. We are all very experienced role-players.

That said, it isn't D&D (or a derivitave) without a big fight now and then, and those tend not to disappoint either.


Yes and Yes.
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I once played a very pacifist Jedi that was originally an NPC I used to use in my Star Wars game. But when a spontaneous online Star Wars game popped up I dug out this NPC to use as my PC. I think she attacked once during the entire time I played her... and that ended in embarrassment while the enemy sith easily deflected the shot from my blaster pistol and ridiculed me mercilessly for loosing my jedi cool. She didn't actually own a light sabre so the best weapon I could use was a blaster off one of my fallen rebel bodyguards. I had great fun debating with the bad guys though. Even got one sith to question his path. Remember this was before the newer star wars movies when the rebels were the good guys.


Yes, and not as much as I enjoy game days with combat.

Vicarious violence is one of the reasons I play ttrpgs, so whole days without killing imaginary villains just isn't as fun. :)


I do play in a 2nd group where we had no combat in a session. Toward the end of the session one of the players was getting agitated and angry with the rest of the group. He is a loud (slightly deaf due to being roadside bombed in Iraq) person to begin with and made it very clear that we had better get our s##t together and have a combat, and have a combat every session or he was not going to bother to show up anymore.

I have also played in a group that self destrructed after 3 sessions where a new DM came in and ran a campaign about...... nothing. We played for hours, making it very clear that we were out looking for trouble and tromping across the countryside looking for anything to do. We couldn't find anything to do anywhere. We explored an empty ruin. I even found and climbed down what appeared to be a purple worm hole and could not find anything. Deep into the 2nd session we finally had an encounter on the road. We were surprise attacked by ONE creature, which pounced on my character and decapitated my PC before we could draw weapons. I never returned to the table. The rest of the group fell apart during the next session. That DM was never heard from again.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I always find comments like this bizarre. Do people not roleplay in-combat in your group(s)?

I've never had a group that toggled on/off roleplay and interaction just because Initiative got rolled. There's always been catcalls, taunts, battle banter, competitive jesting between players/PCs (a la Gimli and Legolas counting kills, things like that), ICly-given tactical commands, complaints about troublesome or problematic enemies, and things like that constantly going back and forth between all the PCs, and between the PCs and the enemy/ies, amidst the tossing of dice and calling of numbers.

Does that not happen in the groups of people who consider combat "not RP"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

When I started my second Shackled City game, I opened with combat, and then we proceeded with some character interaction, and a character got into a solo combat by himself before we closed the session.

Two of the players then missed the next session, which involved a lot of introduction to the city and investigation of the current problem. We ended that session as the party prepared to go into the dungeon. (I suppose there was one combat, but it was over very quickly due to the dice.)

The next session the couple was back and the party proceeded to dungeon crawl. Lots of combat and exploration.

The couple proceeded to miss the next session which was full of negotiation and conversation. They then decided that they were not enjoying the campaign, as it was 'all combat'.

-_-


Orthos wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I always find comments like this bizarre. Do people not roleplay in-combat in your group(s)?

I've never had a group that toggled on/off roleplay and interaction just because Initiative got rolled. There's always been catcalls, taunts, battle banter, competitive jesting between players/PCs (a la Gimli and Legolas counting kills, things like that), ICly-given tactical commands, complaints about troublesome or problematic enemies, and things like that constantly going back and forth between all the PCs, and between the PCs and the enemy/ies, amidst the tossing of dice and calling of numbers.

Does that not happen in the groups of people who consider combat "not RP"?

Absolutely. As I mentioned, I'm running/playing in 5 campaigns. As soon as combat starts, all RP is out the window. "What is your next action?"

So yes, RP-heavy groups are definitely guilty of abandoning RP entirely during combat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I won't deny that things get a little more tactical and less in-character, but who the character is still informs what choices they make in combat.

Shadow Lodge

NobodysHome wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I always find comments like this bizarre. Do people not roleplay in-combat in your group(s)?

I've never had a group that toggled on/off roleplay and interaction just because Initiative got rolled. There's always been catcalls, taunts, battle banter, competitive jesting between players/PCs (a la Gimli and Legolas counting kills, things like that), ICly-given tactical commands, complaints about troublesome or problematic enemies, and things like that constantly going back and forth between all the PCs, and between the PCs and the enemy/ies, amidst the tossing of dice and calling of numbers.

Does that not happen in the groups of people who consider combat "not RP"?

Absolutely. As I mentioned, I'm running/playing in 5 campaigns. As soon as combat starts, all RP is out the window. "What is your next action?"

So yes, RP-heavy groups are definitely guilty of abandoning RP entirely during combat.

I always find things like this so very odd. I guess I'm just lucky in that unless everyone is getting tired or bored this tends not to happen in my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I always find comments like this bizarre. Do people not roleplay in-combat in your group(s)?

I've never had a group that toggled on/off roleplay and interaction just because Initiative got rolled. There's always been catcalls, taunts, battle banter, competitive jesting between players/PCs (a la Gimli and Legolas counting kills, things like that), ICly-given tactical commands, complaints about troublesome or problematic enemies, and things like that constantly going back and forth between all the PCs, and between the PCs and the enemy/ies, amidst the tossing of dice and calling of numbers.

Does that not happen in the groups of people who consider combat "not RP"?

It isn't that people stop role playing in combat, it's just that role play during combat is usually limited and brief. Unless something unusual happens during combat to inspire a role play moment that is, but that is rare. Keep in mind I have two optimizers at my table so combat is very brief. How much dialog can you realistically use in the 6 to 30 seconds in game time combat lasts.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Does it count if we ended the session right before a combat was about to start so we could have enough time to play it out?

Absolutely. True the question should better have been worded 'have you ever made it through a whole game session without a combat.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I think of it as the ultimate success when I can run a fun game for 12 hours straight with not one combat. Not that I don't enjoy dusting it up once in a while, but the true jewel of role playing games is "role playing".

I always find comments like this bizarre. Do people not roleplay in-combat in your group(s)?

I've never had a group that toggled on/off roleplay and interaction just because Initiative got rolled. There's always been catcalls, taunts, battle banter, competitive jesting between players/PCs (a la Gimli and Legolas counting kills, things like that), ICly-given tactical commands, complaints about troublesome or problematic enemies, and things like that constantly going back and forth between all the PCs, and between the PCs and the enemy/ies, amidst the tossing of dice and calling of numbers.

Does that not happen in the groups of people who consider combat "not RP"?

Yeah, we do that, or at least some of it. There's certainly more OOC focus on mechanics that gets in the way of staying completely immersed. And as Aranna said, things are much more compressed in combat. It might be an hour of real-time for a minute of combat. How much actual RP can you fit? Compared to an hour of conversation, which is probably about an hour in both real and game time.

More importantly though, I don't really think of that kind of thing as RP. I mean, when I actually think about it, it is, but it's not what I'm looking for when I say I'm playing for the RP. Nor is it all the non-combat time. Shopping generally isn't, even if we're bantering with the shopkeeper. A lot of planning time isn't, even when we manage to keep it in character. It's the important stuff. The things that go deeper than surface banter.
Legolas and Gimli counting kills was fun. The scene where Sam returns the Ring to Frodo was far stronger.
You can get important character bits in combat, but in my experience it's rare. All of my strongest have been out of combat.

Shadow Lodge

I guess I'm in the minority then. Nothing new there. Carry on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Vincent Takeda wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Does it count if we ended the session right before a combat was about to start so we could have enough time to play it out?
Absolutely. True the question should better have been worded 'have you ever made it through a whole game session without a combat.'

See my follow-up post then. :)


I have tried to play sessions where there wasn't any fighting and it never worked. Most of the players were up for it, but there was one player who shall remain nameless who would get bored. And when he got bored he drank. And then bad things would happen which would result in both in-game and irl fighting.

So, now, I throw in fights every game. Even if they're cheesy and immersion-breakng. Everyone agrees it's a necessary evil.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
And when he got bored he drank. And then bad things would happen which would result in both in-game and irl fighting.

Like setting the town guard on fire? ;) I think I've heard this story.


It happens very occasionally for our group, but as luck would have it our last session was almost combat-free.

My players always seem to love those sessions though, perhaps because they're fairly rare.


Do you mean a day in 'game-time' or 'real-time'? In either case the answer is yes.

The trick (imo) is to have characters (and by extension players) who have motivations other than killing things and taking their stuff (even if those are their primary motivations).

I can think of several examples, the most recent one was when our party spent an entire night at the aptly-titled 'Spire of Intoxicants'. Needless to say we had tremendous fun roleplaying our characters as they became progressively more intoxicated, and the GM had tremendous fun tempting our characters with outlandish concoctions and then describing their effects (both short term and long term).


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I have tried to play sessions where there wasn't any fighting and it never worked. Most of the players were up for it, but there was one player who shall remain nameless who would get bored. And when he got bored he drank. And then bad things would happen which would result in both in-game and irl fighting.

So, now, I throw in fights every game. Even if they're cheesy and immersion-breakng. Everyone agrees it's a necessary evil.

I've never had to deal with a player like that - if they're a problem for your group I would suggest asking them to leave.

Nonetheless, if you're stuck with them you could try forms of conflict that don't involve any exchanging of HPs. My players and I are fond of what we call 'Pirate Dice' (this game has a real name but I can't remember it, it's essentially dice-poker). A good game of Pirate Dice often has magic items, gold and the honour of everyone involved(read experience points) riding on the outcome. So although no fights were had in a particular game the players could come away with the equivalent of a full day's adventuring.

I've also observed that the players tend to be much more willing to risk life and limb for characters they've shared these kinds of tense RP moments with than ones they've shared a dozen forgettable fights with.


Some 80-90% of sessions in one eight year campaign and in another five year long campaign I participated contained no combat.


Aurumaer wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I have tried to play sessions where there wasn't any fighting and it never worked. Most of the players were up for it, but there was one player who shall remain nameless who would get bored. And when he got bored he drank. And then bad things would happen which would result in both in-game and irl fighting.

So, now, I throw in fights every game. Even if they're cheesy and immersion-breakng. Everyone agrees it's a necessary evil.

I've never had to deal with a player like that - if they're a problem for your group I would suggest asking them to leave.

Nonetheless, if you're stuck with them you could try forms of conflict that don't involve any exchanging of HPs. My players and I are fond of what we call 'Pirate Dice' (this game has a real name but I can't remember it, it's essentially dice-poker). A good game of Pirate Dice often has magic items, gold and the honour of everyone involved(read experience points) riding on the outcome. So although no fights were had in a particular game the players could come away with the equivalent of a full day's adventuring.

I've also observed that the players tend to be much more willing to risk life and limb for characters they've shared these kinds of tense RP moments with than ones they've shared a dozen forgettable fights with.

Thank you for the advice, but he's my bff, he's the host, and he's got all of the books. I'd rather play with him than without, because he's frickin' hilarious, he just gets bored if we go all night and there's nothing to fight.

So, yeah, if worse comes to worse, I whip out the random encounter tables. It's no big deal.


Drejk wrote:
Some 80-90% of sessions in one eight year campaign and in another five year long campaign I participated contained no combat.

Stunning! Were these pathfinder campaigns?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I usually design encounters where fights occur when things go awry.

I GM a very roleplay-heavy campaign. In the past three sessions, there have only been 3 battles. One ended by surrender, one was a naval battle, and the third came because of a story decision (a party member stole a bad guy's weapon, so the bad guy hired thugs to steal it back).


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Some 80-90% of sessions in one eight year campaign and in another five year long campaign I participated contained no combat.
Stunning! Were these pathfinder campaigns?

Nope, those were Fading Suns and Mage The Ascension, respectively. Fading Suns included more more fights than Mage.

D&D and Pathfinder games I am involved in see combat on 75-90% of sessions in comparison (one finished two year campaign of D&D, one campaign in progress and one Pathfinder campaign GMed by me in progress). About half of Dark Heresy sessions include some combat or two.

Most other games vary greatly but tend to be shorter thus hardly allowing for determining predictable trends.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

Thank you for the advice, but he's my bff, he's the host, and he's got all of the books. I'd rather play with him than without, because he's frickin' hilarious, he just gets bored if we go all night and there's nothing to fight.

So, yeah, if worse comes to worse, I whip out the random encounter tables. It's no big deal.

Ah, yeah, I can't imagine asking the guy who owns all the books to leave the group - that would certainly be an interesting conversation! ("just so we're clear, you've got to go, but the books have to stay")

Sounds like you've worked out a good solution though :)


Yes! Several times a year at least with my regular crew. As others have stated it does cement the way the players and characters work together for the rest of the campaign.


With my older group, combat-free sessions were just as frequent as sessions involving combat. This group was also used to other systems involving less "rewards" for combat, such d6 Star Wars and Vampire: the Mascarade.

With my most recent group more used to d20 games, I noticed that a the game needed to be particularly exciting in order to keep the players satisfied without combat (or some sort of significant challenge based on abilities and dice rolling). That was cool too; as a DM, its part of my job to adapt my style to what my players enjoy the most.

As a player, I like being challenged. Challenge does not need to be combat, and (for me) challenge doesn't even have to involve dice rolling. I loooove exploration games, both as a player and a DM, which may or may not involve physical altercations.

I personally do not care much for the use and profitability of my characters abilities/investments, but I know and respect that some players do, especially in Pathfinder where "the character build" can be significant part of the game.


Interesting that when a lot of people here talk about a session without combat, they tend to focus on inter-character bull sessions or drinking nights with character bonding, but little actually happening.

Most of our good non-combat games tend to be investigation or heavy roleplay negotiation or diplomacy. Stuff directly tied to the progress of the game. Sometimes the actual climactic moments, with the following battles being more in the way of denouement.

In a recent game, finding the exiled elven prince and convincing him to return and lead the war against his uncle was a high point. And it had taken a lot of work to find out there even was an exiled elven prince, much less where he was hidden.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
And did you enjoy it?

Yes and yes. With one group. Though we usualy RP during fights. Treating combat rounds more as comic book panels than 6 seconds. So we don't feel constrained by the short time of a fight for RPing.

The other group I play L5R and (currently) Iron Kingdoms with it seems like we have to have one combat per session. Which is usualy fine as they can be important.

I think that is the thing that determines a session is fun or not...if a combat feel forced I usualy get bored with it...like wise if the GM is forcing a non-combat session it gets boring.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Have you ever had an entire day of gaming that had NO combat whatsoever? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.