Search results

If you are specifically talking about "social combat" I suppose so. But having a wide range of combat maneuvers available (just by way of example) wouldn't impact your ability to roleplay negotiations with the Duke, would they?

AD&D was chock full of subsystems. My guess would be that you did not use all of those after starting with 3E, so have a "cleaned up" version of AD&D in your mind.

This seems to be one of those "crunch" assessments that only takes into account PC capabilities, not the mass of the rules. From a character ability perspective, AD&D was lighter than modern versions, but AD&D had a ton of other rules and subsystems.

It would be interesting to know when all is said and done which packs did the best.

The OSR started with OSRIC, the retro-clone of AD&D, which is not "rules lite" in anyone's estimation, I don't think. The move toward lite games, including in the OSR, is a recent phenomenon. That's why I called it a pendulum. Relatedly, OSRIC is getting a new edition.

How so?

To me, this seems to exemplify the (false) assertion that TTRPGs are storytelling tools first, as opposed to game engines first. "Evertly moment spent not roleplaying" is irrelevant if people acknowledge the fact that they are playing a game first and foremost.

I rather like the idea of Alien: Earth has a soft reboot of the whole thing. Rather than worrying about where it cotradicts, I mean.

I did not use the word "selling" so im guessing that is more of a you issue?

No. Not one shots.

I did not mean that you could not have rules that impacted roleplaying. I meant that I don't buy the notion that rules complexity in general impinges upon roleplaying, which some folks in this thread has strongly suggested.

If the infamous Griswold snuffs a torch or other light source by any means, all other light sources within 30 feet are also snuffed.

I am separating the rules explanations from the play advice.

A cool trap would be the usual flooding room scenario, except with the torch situation the person with the highest reach will be the last to go out. I can imagine the PCs building a pyramid to keep one lit, drowning one PC while another can try and disable the trap.

This is a good point. I do liked the definition of "crunchy" to be mainly about the number of rules subsystems involved, while "complexity" is more about the number of options and exceptions (especially in the player sphere, but also monsters and stuff). With that being said, I guess I prefer...

I really like Daggerheart, but it, like most RPGs, is way too wordy in explaining its rules.

One thing here is, I think, that we (collectively) aren't really using universally accepted definitions of "complexity" or "crunch" and don't necessarily agree on how those elements interact. Perhaps we should try and define our terms a little?

I think this is a feature. People that want complexity don't necessarily want the game to grind to a stop in the wake of that complexity.

Are you sure that isn't a function of your players not bothering to learn their abilities?

The definition is not in any way dependent on a "whole world." What I meant was that "post-post-apocalypse" depends on having a society that works, not just some faction who has established their special base or whatever.