Rules-Lite VS "Crunchy" TTRPG Systems

[ReadyComicsRoll]

Seeing as how the "rules-lite" systems have been gaining a lot of momentum over the past few years, I was curious to see what everyone's opinions on this style of TTRPG is, as compared to more traditional and/or "crunchy" style systems that people have become so used to for decades. Both obviously have their own pros and cons, with neither being objectively better than the other, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss and compare the two in a friendly matter.

Personally, I enjoy how easy it is to pick up, learn, and play most "rules-lite" systems are, especially if I'm teaching people who have little to no experience with TTRPGs in general. They can be considered a "gateway game" that can eventually lead to the finer details and complexity of "crunchy" TTRPG systems, when there is more time or interest from these kinds of players.

 

[payn]

If the crunch is facilitating the play, then I dont mind it. For a hot decade or two, there was an idea that RPGs need piles and piles of rules to cover any situation. The rules lite systems I find are good in two situations. One is a particular bespoke experience where only providing what is necessary matters. The other is a purposeful intention of allowing the game to be freeform. Some folks work better in an anything goes environment than others.

How folks view the two will likely result from their experiences and expectations. For example, I had a convo with a friend about the BladeRunner RPG. My friend was a bit miffed there wasn't more detailed combat rules, that combat was too lethal, and that there were not detailed vehicle and weapons rules. I was a bit confused because the themes I was after is the human condition in a sci-fi noir environment. They were looking at the rules as more of a all purpose general sci-fi-cyberpunk tool kit. That is what I expect to be crunchy when you have a generic system, not a specific one. This difference in viewpoint continued into Alien when I told them I had no desire to run a long running campaign in Alien but would do one shot scenarios in cinema mode. They wanted long running campaigns going around surviving alien infestations as marines. So, I understand their disappointment because they are looking for an entirely different product that covers an entire world in a simulation mindset. YMMV

 

[GothmogIV]

It's all a matter of preference. Some people like a game with a lot of mechanics, while others prefer a more narrative game with the rules in the background (for the most part). Some folks like grid combat with minis, others prefer theatre of the mind. Or, you can go for a Goldilocks feel ("not too crunch, not too lite...just right!").

 

[Umbran]

Grant Howitt's "One Page RPGs" can be a lot of fun - Crash Pandas and Honey Heist are among my favorites.

One-page games - Rowan, Rook and Decard

rowanrookanddecard.com

One of the things that made the pandemic more bearable was getting into a Space: 1889 game using Fate Accelerated as the ruleset.

Fate Accelerated

 

[ReadyComicsRoll]

If the crunch is facilitating the play, then I dont mind it. For a hot decade or two, there was an idea that RPGs need piles and piles of rules to cover any situation. The rules lite systems I find are good in two situations. One is a particular bespoke experience where only providing what is necessary matters. The other is a purposeful intention of allowing the game to be freeform. Some folks work better in an anything goes environment than others.

How folks view the two will likely result from their experiences and expectations. For example, I had a convo with a friend about the BladeRunner RPG. My friend was a bit miffed there wasn't more detailed combat rules, that combat was too lethal, and that there were not detailed vehicle and weapons rules. I was a bit confused because the themes I was after is the human condition in a sci-fi noir environment. They were looking at the rules as more of a all purpose general sci-fi-cyberpunk tool kit. That is what I expect to be crunchy when you have a generic system, not a specific one. This difference in viewpoint continued into Alien when I told them I had no desire to run a long running campaign in Alien but would do one shot scenarios in cinema mode. They wanted long running campaigns going around surviving alien infestations as marines. So, I understand their disappointment because they are looking for an entirely different product that covers an entire world in a simulation mindset. YMMV

It's funny how important perception is. I remember seeing a TTRPG system document that was 250+ pages for a game that claimed to be rules-lite, and wondered how that could be possible, but it ended up being mostly settings, lore, etc. and the rules/mechanics to the game itself were roughly what one would expect from a bare-bones, free-form with some foundation to work off of, style system.

 

[Deset Gled]

Personally, I enjoy how easy it is to pick up, learn, and play most "rules-lite" systems are, especially if I'm teaching people who have little to no experience with TTRPGs in general. They can be considered a "gateway game" that can eventually lead to the finer details and complexity of "crunchy" TTRPG systems, when there is more time or interest from these kinds of players.

I feel like the opposite is also true. A rules light system is great for a one shot or even a short campaign. But if I were to try and start a new long term group with the goal of potentially continuing a single story for years, I definitely want a crunchier system. Something that there is no risk of growing out of.

YMMV.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's all a matter of preference. Some people like a game with a lot of mechanics, while others prefer a more narrative game with the rules in the background (for the most part). Some folks like grid combat with minis, others prefer theatre of the mind. Or, you can go for a Goldilocks feel ("not too crunch, not too lite...just right!").

Crunchy-Lite. For those who want their RPG to be crunchy and light at the same time.

 

[Madzero]

I do prefer a middle ground, personally ! Having a solid system with numbers is good, but not to the point it should be alienating.

 

[innerdude]

Some of it depends on mindset.

There are some "rules lite" systems that are really just trying to pare down the "traditional" RPG experience by offloading work to the GM.

Some "rules lite" systems are a reaction to some of the built-in, assumed standard operating procedures of the long-standing RPG heavyweights (primarily D&D and V:tM / White Wolf) moreso than they are a reaction to "too much crunch." For these systems, the point of modifying or reducing the rules density is to develop a new mindset around the playstyle mechanisms. They want players and GMs to think differently about what they're playing at least as much as they want the actual play to be different.

For example, I've played Tiny D6 quite a bit. With the right setup, GM, and worldbuilding, it's tremendous fun. But it's not trying to do anything differently than D&D; it just wants to be "Basic D&D without all of the rules headaches, just talk to your GM instead."

Ironsworn, on the other hand, is a rules-light-ish system that asks you as players/GMs to do and be participants in much different ways than D&D. It's still tabletop roleplaying, but there is a distinct and obvious shift in how to approach the game internally that makes a dramatic difference in play vs. Tiny D6.

 

[Cadence]

There is 3.5 crunchy and there is Phoenix Command Crunchy...

I find it isn't so much the amount of crunch or number of rules - it's what some others metnioned above about how it flows into the game, and about how hard it is to find them all. (Like how many places do I have to look for the details about spells I want).