D&D General How crunchy vs casual do you like your D&D?

[Slit518]

When it comes to Dungeons & Dragons, how crunchy do you like the rules vs how casual do you like the rules?

Crunchy meaning lots of match, numbers, things to keep track of, can make crazy combos. Can be a lot of rules, a lot to memorize and keep track of.

Casual meaning as little rules as possible, most of the fill-in-the-blanks are through DM and player creativity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Much more casual than crunchy.

If lots of numbers in all manner of combinations was something I wanted to interact with most of the evening... there are dozens (if not more) actual board games to play which are much more mathematically vigorous and tactically compelling than trying to squeeze that out of D&D. A miniatures combat, tactics, strategy and negotiation game? I'd take Twilight Imperium over D&D for that any day of the week.

D&D has narrative and story. And interacting with THAT is what I find most enjoyable about the game.

 

[Lyxen]

Not crunchy at all. I've had my fill of 3e with endless hours of computing silly modifiers that would change every round. I used to like it, it seemed at least "simulationist" to me, but in the end, it just killed the game for us. And now even browsing the rules of PF2 or playing the latest PF computer game seems like a nightmare, endless rules for, in the end, not much...

 

[Baron Opal II]

Like fresh baked bread- a layer of chewy crunchiness surrounding a warm soft inside.

Well, what does that mean, besides getting close to lunch? I think I want most of my mechanical adjustments to be when I level up a character. I don't think I want skills to be their own thing. Race and class form the bedrock of the character, with the occasional feat to add interest and differentiation.

(Huh. It is lunchtime after all.)

 

[Blue]

That definition of casual has nothing to do with the defintion of casual in terms of RPGs I've heard. Casual is a playstyle, but it doesn't have to do with the opposite of crunchy/rules-heavy. I know several casual, crunchy players using normal meanings of casual - they play the game like battletech or a wargame, but they aren't there for immersive character development, serialized play with long arcs, and other things that are the reverse of the "casual" playstyle. Casual is more beer-and-pretzels play, but does not prescribe the crunchiness of rules.

I'm note even sure what you are trying for with casual - do you mean more narrative-based games, or are you just talking rules-light?

 

[Larnievc]

Very casual. I just throw out a DC for players to roll against and let my imagination run riot.

Combat is as slick as I can make it.

 

[overgeeked]

The lighter the better. B/X is about as crunchy as I’d like. Allow for the option to split race from class. Remove race & class limits. Remove level limits. Bring back the idea from Holmes Basic that you can play anything, even a dragon (as long as it’s on par with the party). That’s the crunch sweet spot. Minimal rules as a rough guide for pure imagination.

 

[Charlaquin]

By your definitions, I’d prefer to avoid crunch as much as possible, but I don’t think these are the way the terms are generally used.

 

[Lanefan]

Did not vote as none of the options suit.

I want there to be some crunch but I also want that crunch to be modular and, within each module, simple, if that makes sense; and even then really only around combat. That said, I also want there to be enough crunch available to provide at least a modicum of simulation if-when required.

I don't really want any crunch around social interaction and relatively little crunch around exploration and-or downtime.

 

[Shiroiken]

Need more options. Most people are going to go down the middle, due to the absolute nature of the vote. I tend more towards casual, but there's a minimum amount of crunch I want. I think 5E has hit a good balance, but wouldn't mind a touch better crunch (not more, just improve what we have).