Any crunchy RPG's out there anymore?

[Voadam]

Hackmaster is a fairly crunchy D&D like game as well. There is a free basic set which advertises:

• A combat system geared for quick, hard-hitting, dynamic action.
• 11 Ready-to-Play characters
• Knock-back rules that eliminate static “conga line of death” battles
• Penetration damage, damage reduction from armor and shields and revamped ranged combat rules, including shield 'cover'
• A combination of slot and spell point system that allows for 'straight up' mage play but at the same time allows your mage to change spells on the fly or increase a spell’s range, duration and other effects
• 70+ spells (including Skipping Betty Fireballs and Heat Seeking Fist of Thunder)
• Classic fantasy races (dwarf, elf, halfling, human) and classes (fighter, thief, mage, and cleric) for your campaign
• Five clerical classes to choose from!
• An all-new thief statistic: Luck Points!
• Quirks and flaws that transform your PC into a real character
• Building Point rules that let you customize a character to your own style (there are no ‘cookie cutter characters' here!)
• Quick-Start rules for even faster character creation
• Skills, Talents and Proficiencies (including all weapons and armor) and specialization open to every character class... for a price
• Honor tightly integrated into play and with more flexible usage

 

[Manbearcat]

No argument that it's crunchier than MG...

But for me, part of crunchiness is "how many subsystems am I picking from, and how often is it a contested decision" - my one session of TB hit was "Which subsystem is almost always self-evident, and when not, an A or B" vs the 3+ options in BW that are almost always available. And, given that it's "pick A, B, or C" as opposed to "pick A or B" in TB... more "does B or C add enough to be worth the time?" is crunchier.

In burning wheel, one is presented with 2-3 systems that could apply to any conflict... Single opposed roll, or one of the extended conflict mechanics, and which skill or skills are appropriate. At almost any non-combat roll, which skill is suitable is usually a list, not a single evident one, in BW. If using the extended options, physical combat has 4 options in BW: Simple opposed, Bloody Vs, Range & Cover, Fight! This is a decision point that, in Torchbearer, is between opposed roll and conflict. Social conflicts can be simple opposed or duel of wits (DoW), or (based upon BW Jyhad), an extended test with a number of required successes over time, but without using DoW... while in TB, it's opposed test or a move to the same conflict system as physical, just with different skills in use.

The actual number of decisions is similar; the range of choices to pick from is more robust in BW.

I don't disagree with you that going from discrete conflict subsystems to a unified conflict system is a decrease in "heaviness" and overhead.

However, I think you're short-shrifting the impacts on play of (a) managing TB's Inventory subsystem, (b) the attendant decision-points related to managing and dealing with Gear Twists (particularly precious items like Rations, Waterskin, Lightsources), (c) Condition Clock, (d) Light Clock, (e) managing precious Hirelings (particularly in high-stakes and danger-snowballing situations with Twists in a delve), and (f) the positive feedback loops and integration with all other decision-points (the orthodox ones to these games like tapping/managing Nature and the TB specific ones like when to try to give up on or push forward in a delve and when to sacrifice gear for treasure etc).

Though structured roughly the same, the game is significantly more complex than MG and while it doesn't have certain systemic complexities of BW, it also has subsystems and attendant layers of decision-points that BW does not have.

 

[Alzrius]

If you want a crunchy RPG, check out Adventurer, Conqueror, King (affiliate link). It's based on B/X, but tightens the math considerably, and goes out of its way to show the mathematical underpinnings of the system at every opportunity.

 

[corwyn77]

If you want a crunchy RPG, check out Adventurer, Conqueror, King (affiliate link). It's based on B/X, but tightens the math considerably, and goes out of its way to show the mathematical underpinnings of the system at every opportunity.

That sounds decidedly unfun. I only tolerate the restrictiveness of classes and levels if the gameplay is relatively simple and fast.

 

[aramis erak]

That sounds decidedly unfun. I only tolerate the restrictiveness of classes and levels if the gameplay is relatively simple and fast.

On a casual skim, ACKS looks no more complex than BXCMI D&D, perhaps even less.
It definitely stays with the D&D/Pathfinder subgenre.

It has some interesting additions, such as fighters getting a damage bonus which rises with level.
Where it goes deep is in the rulership elements.
It does seem to focus on BX levels, has multis as separate singular classes (like how BX does Elves, and how the GAZ line expands elves and dwarves).

 

[aramis erak]

Runequest has more realistic combat and skills. Hit locations, no levels, fairly reasonable magic systems (spirit, rune and sorcery). We switched about 30 years ago and never looked back.

No, its combat isn't realistic. WAY too many self-inflicted-injuries and removed limbs... Its surrealistic mutilation in combat is, however, pretty thematic to the late Mr. Stafford's literary inspirations... and to Mr Tourney & Mr. Perrin's, as well... (RQ is the game Perrin & Tourney wrote for Stafford.)

 

[Ixal]

Shadowrun is still in print, right?

Yes, but they butchered the latest edition to remove crunch.

Sadly dumbing down for bigger mass market appeal works and makes economic sense. A lot of people are not willing to think much in their free time. Some are even proud to be bad at math which is more and more seen as elitist.
So publishers adapt to that and make their games more and more simple.

 

[MGibster]

Sadly dumbing down for bigger mass market appeal works and makes economic sense. A lot of people are not willing to think much in their free time. Some are even proud to be bad at math which is more and more seen as elitist.
So publishers adapt to that and make their games more and more simple.

I bought 5th edition, read through the rules, and thought to myself, "There's no way I want to run this game," before putting it on my shelf to collect dust. It's perfectly okay if you liked the rules, I found them unnecessarily complicated and not worth my effort to use.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, its combat isn't realistic. WAY too many self-inflicted-injuries and removed limbs... Its surrealistic mutilation in combat is, however, pretty thematic to the late Mr. Stafford's literary inspirations... and to Mr Tourney & Mr. Perrin's, as well... (RQ is the game Perrin & Tourney wrote for Stafford.)

Apparently you disagree with Steve on the matter. The fumble tables though they might have overstated the severity, were based on his and other SCA participants in the process's observation of what actually happened in SCA combat. Which while not strictly "realistic" was probably not far off from the kinds of things that would happen in actual situations (they weren't also super far off from things I observed happen in various combat sports I participated in over time (the disintegrating fencing foil was pretty memorable).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I bought 5th edition, read through the rules, and thought to myself, "There's no way I want to run this game," before putting it on my shelf to collect dust. It's perfectly okay if you liked the rules, I found them unnecessarily complicated and not worth my effort to use.

Its to be noted that they aren't notably more crunchy than the prior editions, however. There's always been a subset of SR fans that wanted a less crunchy system, but its not clear from the history of the offshot that is Shadowrun Anarchy that that subset is actually that significant.