Rules volume and play focus.

[Lanefan]

Exactly. You cannot make a character who’s bad at combat in D&D. It’s not possible.

In 5e, maybe. In the early editions it's not only possible but in fact quite easy to make a combat-hopeless character who is very good at other things e.g. healing, sneaking, etc.

 

[Committed Hero]

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).

Combat is by far the most important thing in D&D. It is the only subsystem of the game that has more than one layer of complexity (hit points plus what is essentially a skill-check mechanism for hitting targets).

To your main point, a good design does focus its rules on the core activity of the game. Volume is arguably a second question, about how detailed of a simulation the designer is trying to provide.

 

[payn]

The degree and amount of design doesn't necessarily reflect the degree and amount of importance to play at the table.

What the degree and amount of design reflects is simply the amount of abstraction required. Combat has to be completely abstracted, as does magic (hence the many pages devoted to magic and spells) as neither can be done in reality and most of us have very-limited-to-no real-world experience with either one. Exploration only needs a certain amount of abstraction as we mostly already know how it works via experience in reality. Social needs very little abstraction as not only do we know how it works but it can be played out in person at the table. Downtime - the fourth and all-too-often-ignored pillar - is a mixed bag; it's the pillar that usually gets far less design attention than it deserves.

After that, it simply comes down to the amount of granularity the designers want to put into their rules and guidelines for combat, magic, and to a lesser degree exploration and downtime.

In terms of play focus, each pillar can be emphasized or not at any table based on how they want to play.

Its often ignored because nobody considers it a pillar of play.

 

[overgeeked]

In 5e, maybe. In the early editions it's not only possible but in fact quite easy to make a combat-hopeless character who is very good at other things e.g. healing, sneaking, etc.

Yep. The comment I was responding to was talking about 5E and most of the discussion has centered on 5E.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I think the importance of balance in 5e is definitely de-emphasized with things like "its not a PvP game." But that is hardly the point of balance in this case. Its about spotlight management. If the Rogue is the best at doing everything in a heist situation while a Barbarian player is just looking at their phone because they have nothing to contribute to the typical heist obstacles, then the game's design is getting in the way of the fun of the experience. Whereas the skill list and class system for Blades in the Dark is tailored to fit that experience and even the combat focused Cutter playbook is still very competent and can easily contribute in heists. It doesn't really matter that WotC released a heist adventure. I can use a screwdriver as a hammer, it doesn't mean the design is working well - you are having fun in spite of the system because the Game Master is such a flexible part of the game design process, just as your muscles and hand can turn a screwdriver into a hammer.

But I do agree with the point that page count doesn't equate to importance. Some things are just more complex to resolve than others and requires more mechanics. Root: The RPG has this oddly crunchy Reputation tracker because they are using the same one from the boardgame. Reputation is definitely important, but the reason it gets a lengthy explanation is because its unintuitive at first and needs several examples. On the other hand, 5e has 90% of class features and spells geared towards combat, plus combat being where classes are all relatively balanced makes me think combat is the focus of the system.

 

[Umbran]

I think that the amount of page space devoted to an aspect of play is a clear indicator of what’s important to the game.

As to why - the page space gives you the space the player has to dig in and engage with the system. If you have a sub-system that has 50 pages, and a sub-system that has two pages, there's more content in the former for the player to hook into and make choices with.

It doesn't mean that the latter system isn't there, or cannot be used, but it doesn't really present the players with options for approaches and variations.

 

[nevin]

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.

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.

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). 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.

Note that this is slightly different than the amount of time spent at the table. 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."

Actually I think the more rules on any part of the game the more play time it eats up. The play time doesn't usually get eaten up doing the activity. It gets eaten up, arguing about the rules then referencing the book. Disagreeing about the rules, or stopping the game to verify the rules. More options create's analysis Paralysis and players and DM's stop because they'd rather stop the game and make sure they are right than keep things flowing and risk being wrong. It's almost always the wrong choice but it's the way most humans are wired.

 

[nevin]

This is a false premise, I think.

EDIT: I did not mean to make that seem short. I got interrupted with (eyeroll) work.

Anyway, as someone who has done a fair bit of freelance design in the TTRPG space, I maintain that the rules that take up the most word/page space are not necessarily the ones that reflect the most important aspect of play. Rather, they are the rules that require the most precision to properly adjudicate. This is particularly true in traditional, GM driven RPGs like D&D, and less true in more collaborative, narrative games.

But...People equate volume and sunk time cost with importance. If it takes longer to read the rules on something then sunk cost fallacy means it must be important. If the smart guy spent more time explaining it then it must be more important. It's almost never that way in the smart guy's head but that is how most people gauge things.

 

[nevin]

As to why - the page space gives you the space the player has to dig in and engage with the system. If you have a sub-system that has 50 pages, and a sub-system that has two pages, there's more content in the former for the player to hook into and make choices with.

It doesn't mean that the latter system isn't there, or cannot be used, but it doesn't really present the players with options for approaches and variations.

It's also the place min maxer's or anaylytical players will go to figure out the details that will give them advantage. And those players always slow a game down.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I would also add the Law of the Instrument: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

This is to say, that if a game mostly gives you things to deal with combat, then everything will begin looking like it requires combat to solve.