Far too many. Sorry for the long, rambling post.
There is an oft repeated idea that you can tell what a game wants you to do based on where it puts the weight of its rules (page count wise). I am not so sure.
The version I've heard more is that the game rewards what it wants you to do and that the game is about what the rules focus on.
Let's take the obvious example: D&D (nearly any edition, but post TSR editions especially). The vast majority of rules that exist in the game are focused on the combat system. Note that when I say "rules" here I mean everything from actual gameplay mechanics, to spells, class abilities, monsters, items, etc... I don't think this is a controversial statement.
It shouldn't be but it probably will be.
That said, I do not necessarily think that translates to the intended focus of play for D&D is combat. It is of course important, but it is one of 3 pillars that are generally considered to be equal, as far as play focus goes (from the design intent standpoint).
I don't see it. The design of the game itself reflects the design intent. If social and exploration were co-equal, they'd get a co-equal page count of rules to combat...or at least co-equal resolution quickness. You can resolve many social and exploration encounters with a single roll or a single spell. That's not really possible with combat except a select few powerful spells used in just the right way. A sleep spell on a low-HP mob, a fireball on a perfect formation of low-HP troops, etc.
Further, if the designers actually thought of exploration and social interaction as co-equals to combat, then the books they produce would reflect that. Yet they don't. At all. I mean just look at these two examples. It wasn't until Tasha's (printed in 2020...so 6 years into 5E) that you had rules for talking to monsters instead of fighting them. And in the advertising for Witchlight (printed in 2021...so 7 years into 5E) you had the designers talking up how it was unique and different and special because you could complete the AP...gasp...without killing anything.
Rather, combat requires more detail in D&D (and other traditional games) because of what it is trying to accomplish in the world of the fiction. The social and exploration pillars could be just as detailed as combat (and in some games they are) but in D&D the GM is supposed to do the work that those systems might otherwise do in the social and exploration pillars, and let the rules make combat "fair." There are lots of reasons this might be the case -- and we can talk about that -- but the main point is that just because there are a lot more rules, that doesn't mean that the things the PCs are supposed to be doing in the world is fighting in the substantially same ratio of rules volume/page count.
I disagree. Combat could be equally as fair as it is now (taking 5E as an example), with far...far fewer combat-focused rules. The quantity of the rules in no way directly correlates to fairness. You could resolve combat as a simple group check. It would be a more fair combat system than 5E, it's also more balanced and would take no time at all to resolve, and it's only a few sentences long. But, most D&D players would utterly reject that as the whole of the combat system. Why? Because fairness isn't the point. A crunchy and involved combat system is the point. Why? Because that's what most D&D players want and expect...because that's the majority of what the game is about...because that's what the majority of the rules are about. If it wasn't important to the game, it wouldn't have that much space dedicated to the rules for it. Crafting isn't important to the rules of D&D. How can we tell? Because crafting isn't covered by the rules. It's not a game
about crafting. How can we tell? Because the rules don't cover crafting. So what is the game about? What the rules focus on...which is combat.
Game mechanics are designed around what the game is about and the rules point to what's important to that game. It's one of those things that's so obviously true that I can think of literally one counterexample. Diplomacy. The rules of the game are about moving pieces on a board and the win conditions...but that's not what the game is about. The game is about teaching diplomacy and realpolitik, yet there are exactly zero rules about those.
I mean, no one would argue that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater is a cooking life sim. Why? Because that's literally not part of the game. But the game does have a lot of rules and mechanics about skating and combo chains. So what is the game about? What the rules and mechanics focus on. What do the designers want you to do? What they reward.
Now, RPGs are not boardgames or video games. You can do a lot more with an RPG than either because of the human running the game. Players have tactical infinity, etc. So how can you tell what an RPG is about? Same as a boardgame or video games. What the rules focus on
is what the game is about. How can you tell that Masks: A New Generation is about teenage superhero drama? Because that's what the mechanics focus on. How can you tell that Alien is a space horror game? Because that's what the mechanics focus on. Even if you rip out all the fluff, you can still tell what the game is about because the mechanics still tell you.
Note that this is slightly different than the amount of time spent at the table.
No, but they are directly correlated.
Crunchy combat systems can certainly eat up more actual play time, but that still isn't that same thing as saying "lots of combat rules necessitates lots of combat in the story."
Sure. But if you ask most people what their game is about, they'll tell you what they focus the most on at the table. If you have a four-hour session that's 90% one fight then that session is all about combat. If you have a four-hour session that's 90% roleplaying then that session is all about roleplaying. Trouble is...when combat takes so long (like in D&D) that warps the perception of players. If it takes you four hours to fight the big boss but you also negotiated with a local lord (ten minutes of RP) and delved the dungeon (ten minutes of exploration), then the players are still going to say the session was all about combat. Even if you did way more than that.
The combat that takes four hours to play through amounts to less than a minute of in-fiction time...while the four-hour session of RP can account for minutes to hours to days to years. From the player's perspective the game is about what they spend the most time on. Generally speaking, gamers tend to focus their time on the mechanics provided and referees focus on the content of the modules provided. If they don't run modules, they use the modules as a baseline for how the game "should be" run or played.
You make a game with a lot of combat rules, the players are going to mostly focus on combat. You make a game with a lot of crafting rules, the players are going to mostly focus on crafting. Etc.
