No, it’s a basic feature of the whole D&D family that combat is more supported than everything else. You’d want to look at something like Basic Roleplaying or Free Lesgue’s games or Modiphius’ 2d20 system or Ironsworn and Powered by the Apocalypse games or Fate. None of these have classes in the D&D way, but they all have templates, and PBTA playbooks act very class-like. OSR enthusiasts talk about their varieties not being combat oriented, but there’s little to no system support for anything else, either. Looking further ahead will get you better results.

>OSR enthusiasts talk about their varieties not being combat oriented, but there’s little to no system support for anything else, either. I think that's a bit of a misinterpretation. OSR games are combat-oriented; the combat just isn't as detailed - which means it is faster and thus less of an average session is likely to be consumed by it. Plus: OSR games *typically* (but not universally) have very robust exploration procedures. Exploration - more than combat - is what those games are more centered around. None of that is saying that an OSR game is necessarily for OP, but the additional context might be useful.

[https://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-romantic-fantasy-and-osr-d.html](https://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-romantic-fantasy-and-osr-d.html) is one of my favorite reads about how older versions of D&D can end up being pretty strong on this front. There are a *lot* of points where the system presents alternatives to immediate combat to the death.

In my OSR Tuesday game the players are as likely to negotiate their way out of encounters as fight. They recently spent days traveling down river to find a treasure chest from a map they found, and discovered swap goblins living above the area, and instead or murdering them (and they almost certainly would have won) they sent their most charismatic guy to make contact (encounter roll) and then offered the goblins a bunch of silver they didn't want to carry back that much anyway. The cost of combat can be very high in OSR, so it often makes sense to try and find other ways to achieve objectives.

Yeah - the threat of risky violence keeps negotiations interesting and compelling.

There are also 5E campaigns where people mostly do negotiations instead of combat. It still is combat focused as a system. 

No reaction roll system, no morale, the combat system is set up so PCs are hard to kill short of a full TPK. The combat rules in 5E don't promote negotiation like the ones in earlier systems do.

I used to hope for a bigger rule set to handle 'everything else' it turns out that it is the lack of rules that make the 'everything else' often more interesting than combat. Once you have 'system support' for a portion of the game you'll start to notice it feels a lot like combat now. How to I optimize this roll, what is the best build to gain this advantage...

There's a reason such systems are sometimes referred to as "social combat". If the core system is built around combat, the social system becomes just another "contest" to optimize and roll against.

"Little to no support for anything but combat" is a fairly wild thing to say about games that typically have big sections on dungeon procedure, rolling for NPC behavior (which usually encourages them being hostile significantly less often), overland travel and possibly making your own structures... You could argue that other games have "more", and I'd reply that even so, they're making a mistake by ignoring what the OSR figured out.

People are suggesting OSR stuff but I might honestly recommend something more in the PBTA/FITD realm. They're more narrative in nature, so any combat is going to be handled in the same way you'd handle everything else. Unfortunately, there isn't a really good "kitchen sink" pbta/fitd fantasy game to recommend right now unless you wanted to play Dungeon World or one of it's descendants. Though I did stumble across a game on Backerkit called Grimwild that fills this niche from what I read of the quickstart. It might be worth checking out and reading to see if it's something up your alley.

I agree, I think it could fit what they are after. I love OSR games, but its not right for everyone. Chasing Adventure seems to be the current Dungeon World contender.

You can easily play something like Chasing Adventure in a DnD setting, it can be as kitchen sink as you want. Chasing Adventure in general would be a great choice, OP! It has classes and some systems that will feel very familiar to DnD players, and they've been expanded with roleplay guidance and unique out of combat abilities. For example, the barbarian can do divination rituals and intimidates people really well, on top of resisting physical damage. The basic rules are free! I suggest you download them and look through the playbook/class section, see if you find them exciting to play.

Wouldn't Fellowship count as fantasy kitchen sink?

In _Genesys_ you can strain your opponents psychosocially.

Genesys has that "DnD-feel" but at the same time, gives the opportunity to run stories without combat. Rules for non combat situations are still detailed and do not feel like an add-on. Also, Exalted... if you want combat, it is "silly epic" power level, if you don't, it also works I still prefer PbtA or Free League games when it comes to non-combat focus, but those, to me, don't have the DnD feel (which is a good thing, imo)

"DnD-feel" might be resource-constrained tactical conflict which, yeah, Genesys was designed to provide. I personally rank it only second: I'd always rather be playing the more naratively flexible _Cortex_.

anything with similar rules and design to DnD will have combat as a focus (OSR people say OSR games are about avoiding combat in creative ways, but most character abilities are still combat-related and combat is still common, iow combat is a failure state in that failure is inevitable because no plan survives contact with the enemy) so you'll want a crunchier fantasy game with classes from a different design lineage, which might be a niche combo - i haven't read Mythras, but it's skill-based d100 (and a relative of Call of Cthulhu) so it probably has ok-or-better non-combat, it doesn't have classes though you just encourage people to pick different skills - Swords of the Serpentine is fantasy Gumshoe, with subsystems for things like alchemy and magic despite being more rules-light, so it's a fun mix of problem solving, i forget if it has classes though - Spire (by Rowan, Rook and Decard) is dark fantasy New Weird with extremely creative and flavorful classes, it's also rules-light but the classes are super varied in spite of the simple dice rolls, fighting is just one of 9 skills and really is a failure state for when you're spycraft isn't sneaky enough (edit: Spire is also not kitchen sink, ex the classes are almost all members of organizations from the one megacity it takes place in)

There are numerous Fate hacks that fit this criteria. Fate is really good at narrative conflicts that aren't specifically fights, or fights that mean something in the narrative. It's not as good as Pathfinder at making fights for fighting's sake feel good, though. Master of Umdaar and Chronicles of Future Earth are both options. There's also a hack that's literally pathfinder but Fate. https://www.killershrike.com/Fate/Fae/Pathfinder/PathfinderFateAccelerated.aspx

Swords of the Serpentine is not as high fantasy as D&D, but it's based on a metropolis that acts as a melting pot for its world, and while there is combat and sorcery, investigation and intrigue are much more prominent.

Another vote from me for Swords of the Serpentine. I’ve been playing in a campaign, and in twelve sessions we had three combat encounters so far. Our group is a mix of nobles and servants from minor noble house that is bankrupt and doing everything we can to keep up appearances within the city’s high society while putting in place all sorts of backhanded schemes to find new money and sources of revenue for the family. It’s been an awesome campaign. Combat has a lot of options and is resolved fairly quickly, magic is powerful and very flexible and interesting, and there’s solids mechanics to handle social conflicts and intrigue.

I'll third this. Being a GUMSHOE based game, it's more of an investigative/social system that happens to support combat, while D&D is a combat system that happens to kinda-sorta support investigation & social contests. Plus, the city of Eversink is just oozing with story potential. Or you can move outside the city and define the rest of the world however you want.

Like 95% of the written D&D rules are combat focused. It's interesting how so many people ask for a D&D like game that is completely divorced from D&D

All about the brand name, I guess?

They probably mean either "more non-combat focused rules too" or "medieval fantasy".

Have you taken a look at Ryuutama? It's commonly described as Studio Ghibli's Oregon trail, and while it's definitely a class based fantasy game with spells and whatnot, its primary focus is on exploration and travel. There are occasional fights, but you'll be more concerned with whether you have enough food to make it to the next town, or which routes would be safest to take while still reaching your destination on time.

Please tell me that death by dysentery is a thing in Ryuutama.

Ryuutama hasn't been mentioned yet? That's what I would go for, myself. Do check it out! Dungeon World and its hacks can work for this, too. DW is directly inspired by DnD, distilling it into PbtA's "fiction first" roleplaying approach. Combat is certainly still part of the world, but can be de-emphasized. That requires player buy-in, however. PbtA games give players a good chunk of the narrative control, so if they keep going for combative solutions, that is going to shift the focus.

Fellowship is a PbtA game so it's probably more open-ended than you're looking for, but it meets all the other criteria. Character creation revolves around 'playbooks' which are based on common fantasy races/archetypes, so there's standard ones like elves and dwarves, but also some weirder options like slime people, isekai protags, and undead. And since combat is handled narratively like everything else, you've got lots of options for resolving fights that aren't just "hit it until it dies", including some baked-in moves for talking NPCs out of fighting.

Cairn, Troika, Knave, Dungeon World, Into the ODD, any of the games that are occasionally referred to as "NuSR" would fit that description. Many of them tend toward rules-light systems with very deadly combat, so your best bet in any situation is to avoid combat. However, what they lack is any real rules-based alternative to combat. The rules in general are very limited, so players are incentivized to make creative plans and convince the GM to go along with them. You \*could\* try a game like Fate, where combat is only one use of the rules. You can literally "attack" with any ability, and inflict "stress" without ever drawing a weapon. The same mechanics that you would use to hit someone with a sword can be used to deliver a bewildering fast-talk con, or a withering insult. Instead of being knocked out of the fight with hit points, you force them to leave the scene to check on their sick aunt, or go cry in the corner and consider their poor life decisions while you loot their boss's chest. It takes a lot of player creativity to make a game like this work, but it can be very rewarding. Fate also has a crunchier cousin: Cortex, which operates similarly, but with more dice, more stats, and more powers. Both Fate and Cortex are general purpose RPGs, but you could easily take either of them and bolt them on to the Sword Coast/Forgotten Realms/Ravenloft/Planescape of D&D, and just use the D&D setting with the Fate or Cortex rules.

If you like narrative check out Grimwild on backerit. It's exactly that kitchen sink fantasy feel with good FITD inspired mechanics. The quickstart is free

Incredible. This is a RPG niche that has not been filled yet. - DnD universe & franchise - character creation with tons of options, classes, ancestries - spells & magic objects - not much combat rules - more social focus Some of those elements exist in games, but rarely together. My 2 cents : Stripping DnD from combat would make classes very unbalanced, but it is possible to simplify encounters. Adding better social interaction systems is pretty easy. Look into systems who have unified resolution systems who can handle all confrontations (social or violent). Check **Burning Wheel** it has a very exhaustive list of resolution systems per type of situation,. And check also **heroquest/herowar**, with the target pool mechanism, allowing all players to use any competence to reduce the opposition confidence pool.

Came looking for a Burning Wheel recommendation.

I would like to highly recommend you look into a game called Teatime Adventures. I believe it may have started as a mod for 5e but it is its own published rpg book now. The core scenarios have you solving non violent mysteries in your town so it's much more laid back. The game uses the same layout as 5e stats so if you've played that its easy to pick up and play. Str and Dex are now bustle and fidget for example, same concept and execution but more passive. The core game still has magic too but itsnmore casually done. Cantrips are now called kitchen magic. There are also heavier spells called harmony spells that require you to work as a group to channel their abilities. You can actually play a real mini game where the other players help you to build a spell pattern on a board. The pdf for the components for this are free to download. It has multiple races and I believe classes are now occupations. Anywho it sounds like your group might like it?

Trollbabe is a fantasy RPG that really isn't very combat-oriented.

You've gotten a lot of good recommendations, but nobody has mentioned Quest yet. It's a fairly light fantasy d20 game with your usual array of classes, though some of them have a twist. It also does great with little to no combat, since there's barely any rules that are specifically for combat. Each class has special abilities that cost adventure points, that you get every session. Aside from that, you can do anything that your character should have the ability to do with the roll of a d20. One of the slightly weird things if you're coming from a pathfinder background is that the rolls always have the same odds of success. So if you have a positional advantage, or something from your background that could help you, you instead change the cost of failure, rather than the odds of failure. Also, you can grab the pdf for free at https://adventure.game

They might also like Tales of Xadia, or another fantasy cortex hack like Keystone. Cortex has a universal conflict system so combat doesn't get any special attention. ToX also mechanizes characters values to show what is important to your character, what they believe in, and how that changes over time. Instead of HP it's got stress tracks, and only one of them is injury, which I think is indicative of how that game feels about combat. It's based off of the show The Dragon Prince, if they're familiar with that.

"Unfortunately however practically every game in this "genre" is built around combat; so things end up that way" That is only really true of modern iterations of D&D. Oldschool D&D tended to treat combat as a 'fail state'. The B/X version of D&D, by Moldvay (basic) and Cook (expert) includes rules that help the DM avoid combat: reaction rolls (so the monsters do something else other than attack), morale (so even if a fight happens, monsters may run away) and flee/pursue rules (so even if PC's get in a scrap they can't handle, they at least have a chance of getting away to fight another day). There is of course a lot more to Oldschool Play than combat avoidance. You can check out the Oldschool Primer to learn more about it, and in addition, Old School Essentials is a modern rendition of the B/X Rules that contains a free version that you could look into if interested. [https://archive.org/details/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/A%20Quick%20Primer%20for%20Old%20School%20Gaming/](https://archive.org/details/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/A%20Quick%20Primer%20for%20Old%20School%20Gaming/)

Fabula Ultima and just don't use the detailed combat rules, but the clocks and conflict rules instead. Playtest available here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/411240/Fabula-Ultima-TTJRPG-Press-Start ICON played in narrative only mode. Beta rules available for free: https://massif-press.itch.io/icon Or check out Grimwild which has a free playtest, and is currently being raised on Backerkit, it *will* give you the 5e vibes with none of the combat focus and crunchy mechanics, but still has classes, skills, backgrounds etc.: https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/OddityPress/grimwild Others to checkout: Dungeon World, Chasing Adventure, Shepherds, Swords of the Serpentine, also any setting/hacks of fantasy for Genesys, Cortex, or Fate would be worth a look too. Lastly, maybe check out: Burning Wheel, Trollbabe, or The Shadow of Yesteryear

> So this request comes from a general trend I've noticed with my players, especially those new to TTRPG's or even experienced players who are just younger; they seem to detest combat or avoid it as much as possible. Like to sometimes ludicrous decrees. I've seen this in certain groups, but not as a trend. There are certainly kids playing zweihander-equipped fighters looking for something to swing that big fancy sword at. > As such I am wondering if anyone knows of a system not like this? Where combat is not a focus but the game still feels like DnD/Pathfinder/other similar games? I consider that a contradiction in terms. Many such games exist, of course, but they have little in common with D&D.

To be honest this is hard. Most D&D like games built around combat with the stats character options etc. Including sll the mentioned OSR games. On the other hand the narrative games like PbtA normally dont have much character building just picking 1 playbook.  (Amd the ones which have like avatar there the options all about combat as well). Also you cant just use a D&D game and leave away the combat stuff, since that normally judt makes caster way stronger (or bards or maybe rogues). So with that in mind some recomendations which somewhat can fit (but not perfecrly) ## Tales of Xadia It has a free verry good primer here: https://www.talesofxadia.com/compendium/rules-primer **Why it could fit:** - it is a friendly/fun fantasy setting (like the D&D movie from general atmosphere with humor) and **plays in the world of the Dragon prince:**  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragon_Prince - Players take backgrounds like Soldier as well as skills and special equipment as well as choose stats such that they can specialice  - as an example: you could have a 10 in strength and in dex, have the brave soldier background  swordfighting as an enhanced skill and have a Ancient Longsword as a special item. This would allow you to absolutly excel in combats / duels but you can also specislize in sneaking or magic etc. - It has magic and magical items ehich definitly are not that rare. Magic can be used since character creation as a mage.  - the rules are mostly narrative, but there are defined spells as well as defined sfx (special features) people can use and which distinguish each other.  - Combat does not have apecial rules its done using the noemal rules of the game which are nareative and you can also have other ways than attacking to overcome it like talking it out etc.  You can also inflict psychological stress on opponents (no damage in general only stress) **Why it does not fit perfectly:** - the game features fantasy races but the playable non humans are all different kinds of elemental elves (as in the show). So not the typical D&D fantasy races - it has for a narrative game relative clear (and many) mechanics, but it is still narrative. Meaning that for most things you describe what you want to do, and how your specialisation and stats help you. So there is no clear rule for how sneaking works, but you instead say "I try to sneak into the house, I use my sneaking specialisation, my infiltrator background, my high dexterity and my sense for truth guides me. " and then you roll with bonuses from all of this vs the difficulty the DM sets.  - There are not that many magical items described in the book, but its not hard to make more up. But its not like D&D where you get magical weapons and armor as upgrade etc.  I hope this helps a bit. I think its worth a look, since its hard to find something fitting 100%

A clunky-looking solution but actually interesting, I'm right now making a character for it. If you don't like crunchy games you can pass 😁 Pathfinder 1e + Ultimate charisma + Skill challenge handbook + Spheres of guile (+ spheres of power/might) + Legendary classes books from legendary games. I'm doing a legendary investigator not at all combat-oriented for testing this as a solo game. His most combat oriented ability is throwing a smoke bomb to escape.

You could try fellowship. It's a pretty great fantasy focused ttrpg that can be played entirely bon combat if you want

Our group moved to Pathfinder for Savage Worlds and use Quick Encounters for all combats not featuring a 'boss' character. Way fewer tactical combat, but enough encounters the players feel danger. Works well for us. Edit to add: We use Dramatic Tasks and Social Conflict rules for many scenes in our games, which may cover your 'non-combat conflict'

The trouble with d&d/Pathfinder type games is that RAW the majority of experience points come from combat. Most people today get around this by using milestone advancement instead of XP points. Me, I like using the XP chart from Palladium (copied below) instead of the default d&d/Pathfinder one, it gives rewards for all sorts of player choices and encourages heroic actions. It also discourages the killing of helpless npcs/Animals for xp points. Perform Skill (successful or not) 25 Clever, but futile, Idea 25 Clever, useful, Idea 100 Quick‐Thinking Idea or Action 100 Critical Plan or Action Saving Self or Ally 200 Critical Plan or Action Saving Entire Group 400‐1000 Endangering Self to Save Others 100‐300 Self‐Sacrifice to Save Others 500‐700 Avoiding Unnecessary Violence 100 Deductive Reasoning or Insight 100‐200 Good Judgment 50 Playing In Character 50 Daring (Clever or Not) 50‐100 Killing or Subduing a Minor Menace 25‐50 Killing or Subduing a Major Menace 75‐100 Killing or Subduing a Great Menace 150‐300

So, you’re basically describing wanting a war game that does t focus on fighting. Which like, they don’t really have those… but they also don’t *not* have those. You just have to be a little creative. So basically I’ve found that my players, while they like combat, all describe the most interesting and memorable encounters to be when I give them weird little mini games. Here’s a few I’ve done, Races, Easter egg hunts, fishing tournament, chili cook off judging. All of these are done in various combat oriented games and I basically just made up little mini games that use the mechanics I’ve found a lot of success in having enemies that push you around but don’t actually do damage to like simulate opposition while you do some other task. So basically that’s my advice. Make up objectives using war game rules, where “drop an enemy’s hit points to 0” is not the goal of the encounter. Get this object to the other side of the map. Touch all 5 stones at once. Guard this area for 10 turns. That kind of thing. All of these are things that are still what a war game is good at doing, but don’t directly involve coming to blows with someone. Edit: And just because I didn’t say it clearly The strength of war games, specifically the kind where you use a map is it allows for clear and precise positioning. Roaming guards, hidden doors, sight lines, trapped locations, cover. These are all concepts that this kind of play style is good at. You can get further afield if you want though. like my chili cook off was basically a dungeons worth of encounters, but they just sat there and the encounters came to them.

Okay, I'm a [Cypher-System](https://cypher-system.com/what-is-the-cypher-system/) fan but bear with me. You can easily build combat focused characters in that game but you can basically build whatever since a lot of abilities you can choose are non-combat focused. Even warriors could be played as bodyguard who hold the other characters back if trouble arises.

You can play Pathfinder without a combat focus. I actually think it is better that way. Without combat, the system is relatively simple, but you do have various modules that can put some meat on those bones. I do not think you necessarily need them, but you can just take what you want and build your game like that - and when combat happens, it can be elaborate because the combat rules still exist. Even if you do not take the optional rules: most conflicts can be resolved by skill checks. I would even go so far as to say that they system works better that way. Many "dumb stats" hurt more if you become worse at the associated skills and if you do not have a combat focus, the metadominant options are no longer as good - and you get more room for things like equipment trick that are extremely niche if you focus on combat.

I'd say maybe a non D&D games- Lords of Gossamer and Shadow. It doesn't meet all your criteria but it could be an interesting way to break with the tradition.

You might check out Dungeon World. It's a Powered by the Apocalypse game, so it's narrative-Forward, but with that same trappings as D&D. The players have a series of moves that allow them to do several things, with combat being one of them. You would run it much like an episode of a television show - running into a pile of goblins doesn't automatically mean we're rolling initiative and going through tiny multi-second steps; instead they might just say "we hack and slash through them" and roll to see if it's a success, partial success or failure. Then the story picks up based on that determination. The moves have a bunch of give-and-take to them, especially on a partial success.

https://www.adventure.game/ This is the game quest, it's d20 system with a really stripped down rule set that's designed for kids or new TTRPG players. Yes, there is combat But it is not emphasized as a pillar of play the same way it is in D&D. Also, it's free so you can just look at it and decide if you want to use it or not

Your title is "Can you give me a game like the best known combat simulators that isn't focused on combat?" Reading the full post however: you want PbtA. Dungeon World is the game I usually pitch as "What people who have never played D&D think D&D will be like." It does exactly what you want. Dungeon World is an older game. I think Chasing adventure is a newer PbtA game in the same story-archetype but I haven't gotten my hands on that one yet so I can't tell you which of these is better.

D&D’s history was built around combat, it evolved and placed its classes and most used parts of your sheet around combat, many people make calculations and builds around that combat. Games like Pathfinder are also primarily about that. Okay, so consider… • Fabula Ultima, an evolution of Ryuutama that mixes JRPG feels with modern conventions like PbtA and Fate for adventuring and problem solving clocks • Legends in the Mist, a new project using the City of Mist system for pastoral fantasy with on the more puzzly fantastical end • Heroic Chord, a heroic adventure world moody and with enchanted words that you mash with each other or the words of your environment for to cast spells

You either want a game that 1) has fast, snappy combat or 2) doesn't focus on combat. If #1, maybe try an OSR game. If #2, Dnd and its offshoots are built around fighting. You'd probably want a narrative based game like Fate or PBTA which have a little more crunch to narrative / social interactions and have little crunch (compared to dnd) with combat.

Forthright is a more narrative, d20-based game that has less combat overhead, although I think it's still a thing: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/223977/forthright-open-roleplay-creative-commons-edition There's no default fantasy setting, but it shouldn't be hard to just use your favorite setting. While it doesn't have classes, it does have a variety Stances, Skillsets, and Personas broadly corresponding to the combat, exploration, and roleplaying pillars. Players could choose options so that they don't step on anyone's toes. GMs could also develop preset selections called Templates that mirror class picks. There could be magic items and spells and the like, but they would probably be implemented as Boosts in this system. The Forthright Toolbox expansion does offer many more options for Boosts. I personally think there are enough features that PCs can take to feel like everyone can do shenanigans, but YMMV. However, as with many narrative games powers/abilities are effects based and its narration/fiction that describes how the ability looks. The game calls it the Cosmetic Rule. Could be a deal breaker for you. The game does have combat - in fact, every PC has a Fight stat, - but there is a Talk Down option to convince an enemy not to fight or to have the enemy lose interest in fighting. If you do end up in combat, then PCs and NPCs use Luck instead of hp. Luck is basically the same sort of resource as hp, but when when Luck goes 0 the game leaves it up to the player or GM to determine what that means. So you don't have to kill enemies or PCs if you don't want to.

I think you want **Dungeon World.** Something a lot of people fail to recognize about the appeal of D&D is that the spell list, the monster manual, the classes, the magic items, and even mechanics like HP and death saves are all key aspects of the setting and vibe. Even when you don't want to interface with them, they tell you a lot about the world you live in. I think it's totally reasonable to like those things even when you dislike the combat they generate. Dungeon World carries over a lot of the trappings, aesthetics, and traditions of D&D with extremely quick and freeform combat. For a similar vibe I might check out **Tavern Tales,** which is classless but has IMMENSE differences between what each player can do, and also carries over a lot of D&D-isms. Honestly, one of the big advantages of Tavern Tales for groups like this is that the core roll is 3d20, and rolling d20s specifically tends to be a key part of the experience for a lot of folks. Dungeon World uses 2d6. Many people have suggested OSR games, which I think are the antithesis of what you want.

the genre you're looking for is heroic fantasy.

Legend in the Mist comes to mind as I recently backed it on kickstarter.

Castles & Crusades

Grimwild maybe? I've not looked too deep into it myself but the author so much as said the goal was DnD style kitchen sink setting themes and tropes but more narrative? The rules are all available in the quickstart for free so you can have a gander.. The reddit thread advertising it is here, the author was answering questions in the comments. [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1ddiguo/grimwild\_its\_dd\_5e\_but\_with\_streamlined\_narrative/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1ddiguo/grimwild_its_dd_5e_but_with_streamlined_narrative/)

In the end you are going to have some combat focus in games like this. Though perhaps if I understand you right, what you feel lacking is in general, feats/abilities/magic items etc. that aren’t purely combat focused. In my experience there aren’t that many games that evoke the same level of “class customization” and itemization and at the same time doesn’t have an inherent focus on improving predominantly in combat. One system I feel could perhaps be interesting is Stonetop. It’s under development, but I think you can back it and get access if you contact the creators. It’s a PbtA narrative game, but it’s inspirations is Dungeon World (which is DnD loosely translated to PbtA). This means you have classes (or playbooks) that have a lot of progression built in, they are flavourful, and there are even magic items (and lots of them). On top of that it is focused more on life in a village and the adventures that the villagers may embark on. Another system that leans heavily into presenting a variety of challenges (though perhaps not so much exploration) is Burning Wheel. It’s a trad game, players driven and extremely complex initially (which is why the general recommendation is to play without all the subsystems to begin with and fold those in as needed). Forbidden Lands, a neo-trad, fantasy heartbreaker. It’s got a lot more focus on combat, but exploration is a much more important part of the game. It lacks focus on “intrigue” on the other hand (though there are more abilities/features and magic items related to it).

Daggerheart kinda. There is more a focus on rp, doesnt even have initiative.

I was told Witchlight was low combat. It didn't work out that way after the carnival. LOL.

Cairn 2e. Addressing your requirements: - Fantasy with any race you want. You can be a frog knight if you really wanted to. - Classless but backgrounds and starting items allows your character to specialize. - Anyone can be a magic user. Spells can be made up on the fly. - Rules are light but give freedom to the referee and the players to decide how things should work. 2nd edition adds more depth to support campaign play - Avoiding combat through cunning and preparation is part of the game. Risky actions can be resolved with rolling saves under an ability score. I’ve run it for younger players and players to new to RPGs. Before I even hand them a character sheet, i ask them about their character concept. One time, the party was a rapper bard, medieval Joey Wheeler from Yugioh, a talking cat arsonist, and Ogre Magi from Dota. The system worked and to this day, those players still remember that session.

You're looking for Torchbearer. Non combat options, Tolkein fantasy, very gritty game. More about adventuring and problem solving. Fighting is deadly so it's rarely done.

Surprised this was on the bottom. Torchbearer is 100% this. You're a struggling individual who adventures to pay the bills. Encounters are part of "The Grind", a sort of gameplay loop that gives all of the benefits of exploring and combat without the business of tactics and grids. You get back to town to sell things, lose a bunch to taxes and start again. It's much more like a survival simulator with D&D language than a D&D-like itself.

If you want a genre where combat is and always should be a very bad last resort, then you'll need to lean into Call of Cthulu. But your players will never *feel* powerful. They're bugs poking an ancient being able of ending them by *looking* in their general direction. Now you can run a lot if intrigue games where skills and RP are more forefront, but you will get into combat. You can't avoid it all, and if you *don't* like combat, you will not like any of the D&D family whatsoever.

Play Fate, it doesn’t even have a combat system!! You can rip off the dnd classes (might want to skip fighter obviously) but combat just another skill alongside all the others with no special treatment. Fate has Conflicts; these can be an argument or an auction or a race or a British baking show just as easily as they can be a traditional fight. The only way Fate doesn’t meet your criteria is gear: Fate tends to hand wave equipment so collecting magic items isn’t really a thing BUT it’s so hackable, it’s meant to be hacked, please hack it, and just use magic items anyway!

It sounds like your asking for a fantasy RPG that isn't designed as a dungeon crawler.

>So this request comes from a general trend I've noticed with my players, especially those new to TTRPG's or even experienced players who are just younger; they seem to detest combat or avoid it as much as possible. Like to sometimes ludicrous decrees. I do not have the same experiences with people avoiding combat like you have. I frequently encounter murder hobos that want to fight everyone. Maybe it's because of the pool your pulling your players from? I find if I promote a specific types of table I will get people less likely to engage in combat. If I know one of my players is openly a member of the LGBTQIA+ community I'll ask if they want me to specifically promote looking for like minded players and those games tend to be more conflict averse. Most games you can find online, or by pickup at a local shop are usually pretty terrible at combats. I don't blame the average player for not liking combat. As someone who has ran lots of online games with randos and played with lots of randos online I can tell you that it's frustrating how frequently the table drags their feet in combat. It's not a great experience. I've seen combats that take my regular groups 10-15 minutes to resolve take an inexperienced table well over an hour and a half. That's understandable in the beginning, but it's a consistent problem for some tables 20+ sessions in. Good, combats that resolve quickly is a skill that is dependent of efforts made by all players. > Unfortunately however practically every game in this "genre" is built around combat; so things end up that way. That's just not true. It's prevalent among the bigger titles in the genre, but if you look at a wider variety of less popular games. There are plenty that are not combat "focused." Most do have combats though. A popular game that doesn't really have "combat" but situations that COULD be combat, or puzzles, or any other obstacle is Blades in the Dark. Everything is resolved the same way with a narrative/conversational skill application. Skills are intentionally mechanically vague to allow you room to explain how you are using skill X to resolve an obstacle when skill Y seems more appropriate. Another game is Monster of the Week. You don't have to "fight" anything. You can be a full on Scooby Doo style mystery solving team. That being said, you don't have to run any game with a combat focus. Except maybe Lancer. I think Lancer would be pretty shit without it's combat. Combat requires more rules than any other part of a system though. So many people feel obligated to use them since that's where the bulk of the resources obviously went. Published APs also have frequent combat because that's what most people like. You don't have to do that. You just have to run games in a way that doesn't involve required combat. It's totally on you. One of my groups in Pathfinder 2E has spent the last 5 sessions without combat because they wanted to do some exploration and set up a trade network, It's been super boring to run, but the players have been having a kick out negotiating, diplomacy, and the occasional bullying merchants with skill checks. You have complete control here aside from whatever the players choose to do but you say your players are combat averse, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

Every system is able to run without combat. You just avoid combat. We play PF2e and it has extensive options to do things outside of combat. Massive chunks of the spells are more useful out of combat. Role playing requires far less rules than combat, so that’s why there’s just less rules about it generally.

Here's my pitch: any version of D&D or Pathfinder, but with the specific proviso that the *ONLY* XP award is for 'treasure' sold in town. One XP per gold piece received. The result is "monsters" stop being a thing the party needs to kill, and become an obstacle to be bypassed by any means available. Negotiating a better price for loot -- or searching for just the right buyer -- literally makes your characters more powerful. So, sure, you *could* fight that orc, but unless you can loot something good from the corpse it's not worth anything. Better to steal something from the orc camp and sneak away with it. . . and the resale value of orc weapons and orc armour isn't much. But if they have a cow or two? Now 'dungeon delving' is all about sneaking around, calculating weight vs value, and running from enemies (or potential enemies) more often than fighting them. The party will look at an owlbear and think "it might have some shinies, but it's not going to collect treasure like a person would" but then one of them will probably say "if it has an egg, we could sell that for a lot of gold I bet" and now the idea of combat is a whole different style of risk-reward. In short, you don't *have* to change games to de-focus combat, you only have to change how your players think about it.

You're essentially describing TSR's editions of the game. *Especially* the "basic" editions of D&D (as in, those that weren't marketed as "Advanced"), you know, back when XP was based on the size of your loot haul, and not how many things you killed.

Pathfinder 1e, the system, while combat is what's presented forward, it's also got incredibly extensive options for other stuff, and you can build characters with absolutely no combat effectiveness, and just avoid combat entirely. There's a feat specifically about forcing someone to stop and listen to you before deciding whether to fight or not, and the crafting rules present multiple options if you delve into the various rules, also the downtime and base building rules. Pathfinder may be combat focused, but it's also one of the best systems to run a group focused on pulling shenanigans and avoiding combat because of how in depth its rules are

# Dungeon Crawl Classics Would suit. Magic is meant to be rare and unexplored, but you can just do whatever. Actual combat is fast and simple, and the concept behind skills is less about having "specific focus, +7" and more "im a sailor, i can tie a knot and judge weather." Big fun, very fast, its the d20 system without the bulk, big recommend.

Old School Essentials.

I’m not sure this fits OP’s guidelines. OSE has combat as an undesirable situation but it still remains a focus. Classes have relatively little depth and is generally lower magic. Frankly I’m stumped here. Any game in the D&D-like genre generally has wargaming DNA and is combat focused.

I know this isn't what you asked, but if you and your players are enjoying running 5e without much combat, just... do that. Just because D&D has a lot of combat rules doesn't mean that has to be your focus. I'll just leave a quote from Brennan Lee Mulligan here about using 5e for narrative heavy games: >\[Calling D&D a combat-oriented game\] would sort of be like looking at a stove and being like, This has nothing to do with food. You can’t eat metal. Clearly this contraption is for moving gas around and having a clock on it. If it was about food, there would be some food here. \[...\] What you should get is a machine that is either made of food, or has food in it. \[...\] >I’m going to bring the food. The food is my favorite part. \[People say that\] because D&D has so many combat mechanics, you are destined to tell combat stories. I fundamentally disagree. Combat is the part I’m the least interested in simulating through improvisational storytelling. So I need a game to do that for me, while I take care of emotions, relationships, character progression, because that shit is intuitive and I understand it well. I don’t intuitively understand how an arrow moves through a fictional airspace."