Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9218098" data-attributes="member: 6779310"><p><strong>In re player facing mechanics vs Complexity</strong></p><p></p><p>Unisystem Lite (Buffy, Angel, Army of Darkness, Ghosts of Albion) is slightly crunchier than D&D 5E core with all player facing rolls, but this requires a good bit more prep for the GM, as the core mechanic is essentially always opposed rolls, but NPCs (including monsters) always roll a 6, and this is bound into their action value.</p><p></p><p>Dragonlance 5th age is less complex than D&D, but more complex than its mechanical sibling, Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game; DL5A has 9 suits, 8 atts, and is player facing, while MSHAG has 5 suits and 4 atts, and is mostly opposed play of cards. This makes MSHAG much easier to use the PC gen sequence for NPCs, too...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've always run D&D as Fantasy Medieval Super Heroes. That's always how it's come across to me. I didn't realize that for the first decade, but looking back, I ran it as FMSH.</p><p></p><p><strong>Re WFRP</strong></p><p></p><p>Which edition? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>WFRP 1E: 1d100 ≤ (either Attribute or 10× attribute, by attribute). M, S, T range 1-10, W 1-20, and A about 1-5. WS, BS, I, Int CL, WP, FEL 12-120. Skills fall into categories: +1 attribute, Eliminates a penalty, provides a +10 or +20 (by which skill), provides a special ability. Careers allow a maximum alteration from original rolled attribute while in them.</p><p>WFRP 2e: all atts nominally 1-100; skills avoid a halving at first rank, and add up to 20 with additional levels. Careers similar to 1E. Fewer atts. Shifts damage from d6's, d4's, and d3's to d10's and d4's.</p><p>WFRP 3E 1-15 range for atts, fewer still, different career system, uses custom dice (a few too many types)... good, but also tied to component heavy playstyle and collectorism as much of the material in older core was only in supplements. And the supplements all added more cards. I enjoy it, but it's got issues.</p><p>WFRP 4: basically, like WFRP 2e, but with skills to a max +40, and instead of +5 per attribute gain and (US = ×½) +0/+10/+20 for skills, to 1 per raise on each. Combat almost eliminates missing. Careers far more linear than any prior.</p><p>Soulbound: d6 count successes on 6. Not the same setting as the others.</p><p></p><p><strong>To answer the OP's question</strong></p><p>For me, the «compile time» vs «runtime complexity» is a significant element. </p><p><strong>«Compile Time» complexity</strong></p><p>More and more, I dislike mathy «compile time». It's the numbers of calculations more than the complexity of the individual calculations; GURPS is over my tolerance and has been since about 1995.</p><p></p><p>The limit for me is Rolemaster: the edition I have, using only the ChL/CaL, SL, and AL/CL, with RMC 1 ONLY, is fine, to a point. No secondary skills. It's more math than my players currently would tolerate. It's just a lot easier to use a classless system. In play, it's very much classes don't matter - they just affect the cost of skills and spells. Hefty «compile», fast and simple «runtime» (provided 3 digit +2 digit chain addition isn't a problem - a simple 4-Fucntion calculator per player is a great play aid) and one doesn't use tableless combat (RMC 1), Breaking 150, nor the separate initiative/action costs options.</p><p></p><p>Hero System I'd run again if the idea of multiplication and division of fractions didn't scare half my current players. If I were to use it, first use would be a mundane Semi-Mythic Greece. It has more complex calculations than GURPS, but about 1/3 to 1/4 as many for non-(supers/casters/monsters). </p><p></p><p>I really like the character gen systems for: Star Trek Adventures, Firefly, all the YZE games I've read except Forbidden Lands (which is probably why I've not tried to get FL to table), Sentinel Comics, Street Fighter, and VTM 1e </p><p>I like but find cumbersome the CGen for Prime Directive 1E, Dresden Files, CORPS 1E/2E, MegaTraveller.</p><p></p><p><strong>«Runtime Complexity»</strong> my sweet spot is Mouse Guard - there is exceptionally good advice on difficulties (if a bit rigid), the conflict mechanic is super flexible (if a bit too abstract for some), most uses of skills are mechanically covered in simple ways. Plus its GMing adventure format is a brilliant bit.</p><p></p><p>Year Zero engine is fine in every flavor I've run; 2d20 likewise. </p><p></p><p>Prime Directive 1E is the limit of math crunch in play for me. My current players would find it a bit too mathy. (doing 3 column single + {single or double} digit additions/subtractions. Frequently)</p><p></p><p>Rolemaster or Spacemaster in play are table heavy; that's an issue, but one I'm good with. It's a solvable one, but it's still an issue. MERP was better - fewer tables, but the same general lack of actual in-play complexity aside from tables. </p><p></p><p>If I need a calculator in play, from time to time, I don't mind. If I can't run the game without one, too much.</p><p></p><p>D&D 5E is, for me, way to many special cases on an otherwise solid system. The player base, the tropes common, and the directions the publisher has been going have moved it from "alright, I can run it if y'all want" to "Don't ask for it. I'm done with them."</p><p></p><p>I've always liked the medium-light rules, but don't mind higher complexity when it pays off in play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 9218098, member: 6779310"] [B]In re player facing mechanics vs Complexity[/B] Unisystem Lite (Buffy, Angel, Army of Darkness, Ghosts of Albion) is slightly crunchier than D&D 5E core with all player facing rolls, but this requires a good bit more prep for the GM, as the core mechanic is essentially always opposed rolls, but NPCs (including monsters) always roll a 6, and this is bound into their action value. Dragonlance 5th age is less complex than D&D, but more complex than its mechanical sibling, Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game; DL5A has 9 suits, 8 atts, and is player facing, while MSHAG has 5 suits and 4 atts, and is mostly opposed play of cards. This makes MSHAG much easier to use the PC gen sequence for NPCs, too... I've always run D&D as Fantasy Medieval Super Heroes. That's always how it's come across to me. I didn't realize that for the first decade, but looking back, I ran it as FMSH. [B]Re WFRP[/B] Which edition? ;) WFRP 1E: 1d100 ≤ (either Attribute or 10× attribute, by attribute). M, S, T range 1-10, W 1-20, and A about 1-5. WS, BS, I, Int CL, WP, FEL 12-120. Skills fall into categories: +1 attribute, Eliminates a penalty, provides a +10 or +20 (by which skill), provides a special ability. Careers allow a maximum alteration from original rolled attribute while in them. WFRP 2e: all atts nominally 1-100; skills avoid a halving at first rank, and add up to 20 with additional levels. Careers similar to 1E. Fewer atts. Shifts damage from d6's, d4's, and d3's to d10's and d4's. WFRP 3E 1-15 range for atts, fewer still, different career system, uses custom dice (a few too many types)... good, but also tied to component heavy playstyle and collectorism as much of the material in older core was only in supplements. And the supplements all added more cards. I enjoy it, but it's got issues. WFRP 4: basically, like WFRP 2e, but with skills to a max +40, and instead of +5 per attribute gain and (US = ×½) +0/+10/+20 for skills, to 1 per raise on each. Combat almost eliminates missing. Careers far more linear than any prior. Soulbound: d6 count successes on 6. Not the same setting as the others. [B]To answer the OP's question[/B] For me, the «compile time» vs «runtime complexity» is a significant element. [B]«Compile Time» complexity[/B] More and more, I dislike mathy «compile time». It's the numbers of calculations more than the complexity of the individual calculations; GURPS is over my tolerance and has been since about 1995. The limit for me is Rolemaster: the edition I have, using only the ChL/CaL, SL, and AL/CL, with RMC 1 ONLY, is fine, to a point. No secondary skills. It's more math than my players currently would tolerate. It's just a lot easier to use a classless system. In play, it's very much classes don't matter - they just affect the cost of skills and spells. Hefty «compile», fast and simple «runtime» (provided 3 digit +2 digit chain addition isn't a problem - a simple 4-Fucntion calculator per player is a great play aid) and one doesn't use tableless combat (RMC 1), Breaking 150, nor the separate initiative/action costs options. Hero System I'd run again if the idea of multiplication and division of fractions didn't scare half my current players. If I were to use it, first use would be a mundane Semi-Mythic Greece. It has more complex calculations than GURPS, but about 1/3 to 1/4 as many for non-(supers/casters/monsters). I really like the character gen systems for: Star Trek Adventures, Firefly, all the YZE games I've read except Forbidden Lands (which is probably why I've not tried to get FL to table), Sentinel Comics, Street Fighter, and VTM 1e I like but find cumbersome the CGen for Prime Directive 1E, Dresden Files, CORPS 1E/2E, MegaTraveller. [B]«Runtime Complexity»[/B] my sweet spot is Mouse Guard - there is exceptionally good advice on difficulties (if a bit rigid), the conflict mechanic is super flexible (if a bit too abstract for some), most uses of skills are mechanically covered in simple ways. Plus its GMing adventure format is a brilliant bit. Year Zero engine is fine in every flavor I've run; 2d20 likewise. Prime Directive 1E is the limit of math crunch in play for me. My current players would find it a bit too mathy. (doing 3 column single + {single or double} digit additions/subtractions. Frequently) Rolemaster or Spacemaster in play are table heavy; that's an issue, but one I'm good with. It's a solvable one, but it's still an issue. MERP was better - fewer tables, but the same general lack of actual in-play complexity aside from tables. If I need a calculator in play, from time to time, I don't mind. If I can't run the game without one, too much. D&D 5E is, for me, way to many special cases on an otherwise solid system. The player base, the tropes common, and the directions the publisher has been going have moved it from "alright, I can run it if y'all want" to "Don't ask for it. I'm done with them." I've always liked the medium-light rules, but don't mind higher complexity when it pays off in play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally
Top