I don't presume to speak for every designer who had to hear the criticism that their crunchy combat system meant that their game is all about combat. I've heard that said about many games since D&D first came out and here is how I replied in my own rules:
"That I provide elaborate combat rules does not mean that combat should be the focus of your campaign. Your GM can provide you many situations and challenges where combat can be avoided and some where it isn't even an option. The rules are there for when you need them.
I ran an eighteen-month campaign where the PCs were performers and roadies in the world's first Elven Fusion rock band. There was some fighting but it was far from a major feature of the campaign."

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1039781Your GM can provide you many situations and challenges where combat can be avoided and some where it isn't even an option. The rules are there for when you need them.

So put that somewhere near the beginning of the combat chapter, and maybe add another chapter, or even a few paragraphs on alternate problem solving methods.

If a game book spend most of its pages on one thing, then the game is about that thing.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039804If a game book spend most of its pages on one thing, then the game is about that thing.

Only to stupid people.

Quote from: Omega;1039807Only to stupid people.

Maybe, but I think that the "vibe" of a game can be found by reading the rules. If combat is all you get, that's all the reader will expect to deliver. Certainly an experienced player or GM can look past the rules and supplement with non-combat stuff, but a novice may not really know to do so.

Take for example the original BOOT HILL game from TSR. Essentially, it's a miniatures combat rules set for Western adventures. There are no real rules for character development, and when we played in the 1970's we pretty much did some hand-waving for the early part of each adventure and then ended with a massive gunfight. The rules sort of implied that this is what we were "supposed" to do when we played. The original D&D rules, however, had information about building castles and taxing the people and so our D&D campaigns may have started out as "loot the dungeon, kill the creatures" adventures but then evolved into a more strategic game of barons and nobles. It was all about the way the games were presented.

Quote from: Omega;1039807Only to stupid people.

If the game spends most of its time talking about combat, and provides little else mechanically to support other forms of problem solving, then that game is poorly equipped to handle non combat situations. Yes, you can argue you still can do those tings, but that doesn't mean a system is good at it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039804If a game book spend most of its pages on one thing, then the game is about that thing.

False dichotomy.  If a game spends all its pages and energy (or so close to "all" as to make no difference) on one thing, then it is probably about that thing.  However, if a game can explain how a major part of the game works in less words than some other part of the game, that's just the nature of how those parts work in the game.

Also note that mechanics versus GM advice/guidelines are likely to be in different proportions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039804If a game book spend most of its pages on one thing, then the game is about that thing.

Quote from: Omega;1039807Only to stupid people.

RPGs are the only gaming hobby where you find folks who claim the people who think a game is about what its rules make it about to be stupid.  But it gets worse, as I've even seen people claim that combat rules are actually there to discourage players from engaging in combat. In other words, they're a penalty for engaging in a particular part of play.

If you made either of these claims in any other industry you'd be dismissed as insane. That is, not even rational enough to be stupid.

I'm in agreement with Spinachcat, thus I am stupid according to Omega ( and most people who meet me:)).  Most games have some sort of mechanical focus.  If a 100 page rulebook spends half that page count on combat and things related to combat, then that game's main focus is on combat.  The same could be said if it was half about magic, or social interactions.

It just seems weird that games where combat supposedly isn't the focus because it's lethal and to be avoided at nearly all costs, have some of the most detailed combat systems out there.  If it's not the focus and you want it lethal, there's probably other ways it can be done.

It can be a valid complaint.  Sure, I can play 5th edition D&D (or heaven forbid, 4th edition) and have a game that revolves around political intrigue and all that other political whatnots and drama, drama, drama- never picking up a miniature and breaking out the battle board.  Personally, I'd look for something else to do it, but however someone wants to use the game they have it up to them.

Quote from: Omega;1039807Only to stupid people.

If you spend most of your allotted page count for an aspect of your product which you see as secondary, you've failed as a designer.

Quote from: Krimson;1039784So put that somewhere near the beginning of the combat chapter, and maybe add another chapter, or even a few paragraphs on alternate problem solving methods.

Yes. It's no accident that D&D involves a lot of spell casting, and combat, and gathering treasure, because that's the stuff in the books.

4th ed had the good intention, but bad implementation, of trying to create an engaging universal system for resolving non-combat stuff that approached the level of detail of the combat system. While I think the Skill Challenge system was not a good way to approach it, I can say at least they tried, and maybe we can learn from that mistake.

The author, like any artist, loses control of the interpretation of the text upon release to the audiences of the world. The author may try to clarify as best as they can, and schools of thought may attempt to put primacy upon certain contextual ways. But once the work leaves the maker its message is dependent upon who receives it.

And thus you now know how Tzeench causes chaos!

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1039781I don't presume to speak for every designer who had to hear the criticism that their crunchy combat system meant that their game is all about combat. I've heard that said about many games since D&D first came out and here is how I replied in my own rules:
"That I provide elaborate combat rules does not mean that combat should be the focus of your campaign. Your GM can provide you many situations and challenges where combat can be avoided and some where it isn't even an option. The rules are there for when you need them.
I ran an eighteen-month campaign where the PCs were performers and roadies in the world's first Elven Fusion rock band. There was some fighting but it was far from a major feature of the campaign."

I.E. Rule Zero.

Crom's hairy nutsack.

Bluffing appears NOWHERE in the rules of poker.  Not everybody needs to be led around by their dinkie.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;10398374th ed had the good intention, but bad implementation, of trying to create an engaging universal system for resolving non-combat stuff that approached the level of detail of the combat system. While I think the Skill Challenge system was not a good way to approach it, I can say at least they tried, and maybe we can learn from that mistake.

They tried completely the wrong things however.  They went a long way toward constraining any advantage that a player might be able to get by creative or lateral thinking or approaches to a situation and drew it all back to a series of skill roles.  Anything you wanted to do to resolve the situation - make a skill role.  Come up with a clever plan to avoid the need to avoid making a role in situations you're not suited for?  - nope, that's just colour - make a skill role.