Tell me what you love about rules heavy games

[Morrus]

There's lots of talk about rules light games, narrative games, and games whose primary goal is to be "fast and fun". Which is, of course, a laudable goal, and achieved well by games such as Savage Worlds and others. Piratecat's new TimeWatch is a great example, and you should check that out.

But what do you enjoy about a really crunchy RPG? On a board which originated as a D&D 3E board (a pretty crunchy game!) it seems as good a place as any to find fans of the crunch.

For me --

• Rules heavy can still be fast and fun (big backend, funnels down to a simple frontend)
• A big backend can mean hours of tinkering and optimization; this is its own level of fun for some people - the game doesn't only take place at the game table, as long as this isn't a requirement
• Tactical play is rewarding in a different way to more narrative play
• Heavily crunchy games have more parts to take apart and play with, lending them well towards houserules and the like
• While crunchy games sometimes require a higher buy-in, I feel they can reward that buy-in

I'm using words like crunchy, narrative etc. kinda vaguely - I know what they mean to me. I'm am 100% sure that they mean something different to you, and the thread will devolve into an argument about definitions of words. But hopefully we can get some conversation in first! This thread's all about the love for crunch!

 

[Evenglare]

I like rules heavy games for a couple of reasons.

Pathfinder and 3e I enjoy because almost everything is defined, and has a mechanic, and (simply put) that's how X works in the game. It's all very consistent compared to a rules light game. Every time you hit a wall and it is made of a certain material and thickness etc etc, you know exactly what you need to roll every time to destroy it. I like those simulationist games because it is all very mathematical and similar to physics (which I am a physicist so that's probably the reason I enjoy highly complex games with rules for everything). Now we can argue back and forth all day whether a certain rule or object should contain a number X to work, but simulationist games shouldn't be balanced to me. Magic does X, it's always going to do X and if it's defined in the game and much more powerful for a fighter... TS, it's just a product of how the rules are defined in the world. Again, I realize many players don't like this linear fighter quadratic wizard, but whatever, it is what it is and I LOVE it. It's like a clock where everything has a part that has mechanics that fit into the world as a whole.

 

[gamerprinter]

I like options (lots of options), that are mechanically tied together in a logical manner and recognized 'whole'. While a lite system might allow total freedom in a possible direction, it not necessarily controlled direction. I want something with many parts, and a seeming whole that is larger than the sum of the parts. Does that make sense?

 

[DireGreenSlime]

I really enjoy being able to express my character concept by using all the various moving parts a crunchy system offers. It's satisfying to be able to do something cool that no one else at the table can because you've taken different paths in your character development. I find crunchy systems do that best for me because they allow me to build and "own" that cool thing. In a way, it's like crafting a personal rule from the pieces of the game.

 

[Umbran]

• Rules heavy can still be fast and fun (big backend, funnels down to a simple frontend)
• A big backend can mean hours of tinkering and optimization; this is its own level of fun for some people - the game doesn't only take place at the game table, as long as this isn't a requirement
• Tactical play is rewarding in a different way to more narrative play
• Heavily crunchy games have more parts to take apart and play with, lending them well towards houserules and the like
• While crunchy games sometimes require a higher buy-in, I feel they can reward that buy-in

All true, in my experience, except for the first one. If the big backend funnels down to a simple front-end in play, that means things are getting compressed as you go through the funnel, and you're losing information. That means some of that back end is actually pretty irrelevant to what finally happens at the front.

I don't mind working with fiddly bits, but if I'm going to invest that time, it needs to matter - no lossy compression!

 

[Morrus]

All true, in my experience, except for the first one. If the big backend funnels down to a simple front-end in play, that means things are getting compressed as you go through the funnel, and you're losing information. That means some of that back end is actually pretty irrelevant to what finally happens at the front.

I don't mind working with fiddly bits, but if I'm going to invest that time, it needs to matter - no lossy compression!

What I mean by that is - at a really simple level, this: take an attack bonus like in a game such as D&D. In combat, next to your sword, it says "+9". Nice and quick and easy. You roll d20 and add 9. Hit! Small frontend.

But to GET that +9 you combined class bonuses, and two feats, and ability modifiers, and goodness knows what else. That's the big backend.

So you can spend hours working out how to get your attack bonus as high as possible through numerous mechanisms, but when you come to play in combat, it's that total +9 that matters.

That's a very simple example, of course. Building a starship might be a much more complex example in a rules-heavy game, but still distill down into a manageable amount. It's like a car designer might spend ages playing with engine power and weight and fuel injection systems and body shape and lots of complex stuff (big backend) - all of which funnels down into "press the accelerator and this car goes from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds" (small frontend).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rules heavy games- the good ones, at least- give me consistency & clarity, and reward my inner tinkerer with options. I like fiddling around with the rules finding ways to make unusual things work, or different ways of doing things. For example, in HERO, each PC is like a unique puzzle.

Uh-oh- I just realized that if the cenobites ever release an RPG, I am SO going to hell!

 

[Nagol]

All true, in my experience, except for the first one. If the big backend funnels down to a simple front-end in play, that means things are getting compressed as you go through the funnel, and you're losing information. That means some of that back end is actually pretty irrelevant to what finally happens at the front.

I don't mind working with fiddly bits, but if I'm going to invest that time, it needs to matter - no lossy compression!

The Hero System has a huge backend and a small front end. The information that gets removed are all the powers, abilities, advantages, disadvantages, modifiers, skills, and effects the PC didn't purchase.

The backend is only relevant for character creation and advancement for players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Hero System has a huge backend and a small front end. The information that gets removed are all the powers, abilities, advantages, disadvantages, modifiers, skills, and effects the PC didn't purchase.

The backend is only relevant for character creation and advancement for players.

Yup- pretty much all you need for playing a session of HERO (after PC creation, of course) is on the character sheet. You almost never touch the books in play.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

The Hero System has a huge backend and a small front end. The information that gets removed are all the powers, abilities, advantages, disadvantages, modifiers, skills, and effects the PC didn't purchase.

The backend is only relevant for character creation and advancement for players.

True, but I would posit that the front end is still pretty weighty. While it is possible to build characters whose abilities distill into very specific die rolls that are quickly resolved, the general layout of the combat system is such that a broad variety of builds can still take heavy figuring to make them work at the moment of impact. A general rule of thumb might be to compare the time it takes to get through a given combat scenario if as many elements as possible are fairly equitable. Of course, rules expertise helps... but then, I would consider that another variable that indicates relative weight.

I'm fond of crunchy games, and we still play a lot of 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder, but it took my entire group less than a month to become heart-and-soul converts to Savage Worlds. Like many, I wish there was a way to combine the crunchy goodness of D&D with the exciting execution of SW.