Erechel
Explorer
Disclaimer: Please, please, please don't take this as an attempt of edition/gaming flame war. This is merely a description of how do TTRPGs work, not a judgement about them.
When we say that one RPG is focused on "combat" or any other part of the game (EG: the Three Pillars of the Game proposed by D&D 5th Ed), we need to take account something: how it resolves conflict. This is going to determine how much time and development there is in a single part of the game. There are two ways of resolving conflict: via simple or complex tasks.
Why is this important? Because when you are designing a game or a session, complex tasks come with focus. You need to take account of more resources, features, abilities. There is more granularity on complex tasks, and it is usually where the "crunch" resides.
Let's imagine a d20 game where all combats were resolved by a single check: if you succeed the "fight" check, you win. If you fail the fight check, you lose. Combat in such a game will be fast, short, and mostly handwaved. There would not be a need to construct detailed rules to affect combat, perhaps a few simple ones: light armor gives +1 to the check, medium armor +2 and heavy armor +3; simple weapons will give +1, and martial weapons +2. Magic gives +2. So your base wizard will have +2 to the combat check, whereas your knight will have +5. There is an enemy with a difficulty of 12: If your knight rolls a 7 or more, you win the fight. A wizard will need 10 or more. If they fail, they lose the fight: run away, dead or arrested.
For the same game we will assume that social interaction as a complex task: many features modify it, and each interaction requires several roles, and partial consequences. You will have three main approaches (threatening, flattery, trickery); every NPC will have a "social rank" with Reputation and Objections to the goals of the party. Objections will function as the thing to erase, and Reputation as a sort of difficulty check: the more reputation an NPC has, the difficultier it is to attack their objections. Intimidation would function as a high stakes option: you are less likely to succeed against high reputation, but once you pass the Reputation difficulty check, it is the more effective erasing Objections. Flattery will function just in the opposite way: it is easier to pass the Reputation, but you have less effect. Trickery is going to be the "spellcasting" of the system: there are going to be several specific approaches to trickery (deception, honorbounding, blackmail, etc), but it revolves around controlling the Interaction. Of course, you'll need the NPCs to have their own attacks and goals, and their own tactics to win the interaction.
You'll easily see what the focus of the game is. The more complex tasks you add to any part of the game, the more the focus of the game it will be. This is why D&D is a heavily combat focused game: because it constructs complex tasks of combat, and simple tasks almost everywhere else (EG: wilderness survival will be solved most of the time by simple, low level features like create water spells or the ranger's ability to feed their party automatically)*. That's why Torchbearer is an Survivalism game: because it happens to be where the greater amount of crunch resides (weather, exhaustion conditions, etc).
This will also mean something: a "rules light" game will base itself on simple tasks, and a "rules heavy" game will construct complex tasks.
Balance will depend on the complex tasks features, because there is going to be the most important focus of the game. As I said earlier, this isn't a judgement. No pillar of an RPG is inherently better than another: social interaction isn't better or more "RPG" than combat, but most games are more focused on one thing or another.
*I know this is an oversimplification for the sake of explanation. There are ways to increase the complexity of tasks outside combat, as the system is flexible enough to allow it. But the core rules aren't all that crunchy nor construct really complex tasks.
When we say that one RPG is focused on "combat" or any other part of the game (EG: the Three Pillars of the Game proposed by D&D 5th Ed), we need to take account something: how it resolves conflict. This is going to determine how much time and development there is in a single part of the game. There are two ways of resolving conflict: via simple or complex tasks.
- Simple tasks are just that: simple checks. They have a binary solution, linked to a single mechanic (usually resolved by just one dice roll). One example is a D&D skill check: after the DC is settled, the characters attempting to succeed roll 1d20 and add their modifiers. If the overall number is equal or higher than the DC, they succeed. If it is lesser, they fail: the lock won't open, or rock falls, everyone dies. Simple tasks often offer "boolean" solutions: there is no graduality in the results. There aren't "steps" to the final solution, nor additional complications.
- Complex tasks are just the oposite: they can't be resolved by a single skill check. Characters need to take multiple actions and spend resources to succeed. Each individual success is a step to the final victory, but the final result is hardly boolean. The classical example of a complex task in D&D is combat: Each character must fulfill a role, expend resources and make decissions. Bad decissions lead to faster depletion of resources (like HP or spell slots), and the possibility of failure increases. Good decissions improves the economy of resources.
Why is this important? Because when you are designing a game or a session, complex tasks come with focus. You need to take account of more resources, features, abilities. There is more granularity on complex tasks, and it is usually where the "crunch" resides.
Let's imagine a d20 game where all combats were resolved by a single check: if you succeed the "fight" check, you win. If you fail the fight check, you lose. Combat in such a game will be fast, short, and mostly handwaved. There would not be a need to construct detailed rules to affect combat, perhaps a few simple ones: light armor gives +1 to the check, medium armor +2 and heavy armor +3; simple weapons will give +1, and martial weapons +2. Magic gives +2. So your base wizard will have +2 to the combat check, whereas your knight will have +5. There is an enemy with a difficulty of 12: If your knight rolls a 7 or more, you win the fight. A wizard will need 10 or more. If they fail, they lose the fight: run away, dead or arrested.
For the same game we will assume that social interaction as a complex task: many features modify it, and each interaction requires several roles, and partial consequences. You will have three main approaches (threatening, flattery, trickery); every NPC will have a "social rank" with Reputation and Objections to the goals of the party. Objections will function as the thing to erase, and Reputation as a sort of difficulty check: the more reputation an NPC has, the difficultier it is to attack their objections. Intimidation would function as a high stakes option: you are less likely to succeed against high reputation, but once you pass the Reputation difficulty check, it is the more effective erasing Objections. Flattery will function just in the opposite way: it is easier to pass the Reputation, but you have less effect. Trickery is going to be the "spellcasting" of the system: there are going to be several specific approaches to trickery (deception, honorbounding, blackmail, etc), but it revolves around controlling the Interaction. Of course, you'll need the NPCs to have their own attacks and goals, and their own tactics to win the interaction.
You'll easily see what the focus of the game is. The more complex tasks you add to any part of the game, the more the focus of the game it will be. This is why D&D is a heavily combat focused game: because it constructs complex tasks of combat, and simple tasks almost everywhere else (EG: wilderness survival will be solved most of the time by simple, low level features like create water spells or the ranger's ability to feed their party automatically)*. That's why Torchbearer is an Survivalism game: because it happens to be where the greater amount of crunch resides (weather, exhaustion conditions, etc).
This will also mean something: a "rules light" game will base itself on simple tasks, and a "rules heavy" game will construct complex tasks.
Balance will depend on the complex tasks features, because there is going to be the most important focus of the game. As I said earlier, this isn't a judgement. No pillar of an RPG is inherently better than another: social interaction isn't better or more "RPG" than combat, but most games are more focused on one thing or another.
*I know this is an oversimplification for the sake of explanation. There are ways to increase the complexity of tasks outside combat, as the system is flexible enough to allow it. But the core rules aren't all that crunchy nor construct really complex tasks.
