Any crunchy RPG's out there anymore?

[John Dallman]

Character design is easier in GURPS because the player, especially a new player, can simply pick things from a list. Hell, most gamers of my acquaintance, me included, think that that's fun. Character design in HERO is harder as it requires an understanding of an algorithm that looks pretty damn impenetrable to a new player.

Both systems benefit from some experience of how to fit things together. I started running a GURPS WWII campaign last year, with fairly freeform character generation. Some of my players know the system better than me, but I found it worthwhile spending time with each of the others to improve the character designs. This was a couple of hours for each player, but since I expect the campaign to run at least 50-100 sessions, it was time well spent.

While I am a GURPS fan-boy through and through, I don't like it for supers. If Champions was the only supers game out there, I would use it for supers and anything requiring ultra-tech/vehicles and GURPS for everything else. I consider GURPS and Hero both to be medium complexity and both pretty front-loaded.

Definitely agreed. In particular, the GURPS skill mechanics play much more smoothly for me, which really matters in high-tech low-combat settings.

 

[Parmandur]

My aversion to math is not that an RPG has ever thrown a math problem at me that I couldn't easily solve at the game table, it's that:

A) Time spent on math is not time spent on anything in the game that I take enjoyment out of. Whether or not there is a calculator on my phone, at the point where somebody gets a calculator out we are no longer playing a game, we are doing accounting. To me the optimal level of math for a game is the amount where I look at two basic numbers and just know the answer as someone reasonably good at math, and anything beyond that is a tax on my time that needs justifying. It might be justified, but it also might just be a sign of system bloat.

B) There is usually going to be someone at the table for whom math is at least kind of stressful. Yes, they probably can actually handle whatever math the game is throwing at them, but that does not mean they can actually enjoy an experience that involves doing it on the spot while the table waits for them.

Give me a table of people who genuinely like crunch and a game that actually makes it worthwhile and I'll gladly delve into the crunch. But if crunch really is in decline in the hobby I would consider that a positive move towards inclusiveness and possibly a sign of tighter game design.

Undersigned. I'm good at math, but mostly it's dull. A little bit goes a long way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also, I have to note that, if anything, non-powered heroic scale characters in Hero are simpler to put together than their equivalent in GURPS.

 

[aramis erak]

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).

I've fought SCA Heavy for a couple years and SCA Rapier for over a cumulative decade, and been a participating member of the SCA for decades, spending a lot of time at the field's edge (Herald and Marshal) when not fighting. Steve and Ray's fumble rules are WAY beyond the pale. People very rarely hit themselves. Not even newbs. Drop the fumble rules, and it's more realistic than D&D; with them, it's far less realistic than D&D.

Now, I have had Sir Kylson hit me instead of his target when I was serving as his shieldman. He was using a double-edge Glaive.
I've also encountered a lot of double kills in SCA heavy... but those aren't fumbles. Sir Phelan and I double killed 8 times in a row on a bearpit (He'd just taught me the Radnor Wrap)...
I've seen a number of athletic cups get damaged audibly, followed rapidly by the wearer exiting the field.

it's worth noting, however, that SCA combat in the early 70's was less efficient, had lower safety and training standards, and a lot less historicity.

I also knew a couple SCAers who knew Steve and Ray... the mutual acquaintances also felt the fumbles fun but unrealistic. And that ascribes the probable reason for them: [b\They're fun, not realistic.[/b]
the fumble rate in RQ is (5-(skill/20))%... which, for a typical dedicated fighter is 2%. The RQ2 rules (the earliest I've access to) specify 12 sec. So 50*12 =600 sec per fumble per person. That's 10 minutes.
30% lose future actions
20% strap failures . that's hourly - WAY too frequent. one to two orders of magnitude
5% fall down. Yup
8% twist ankle - I've seen this once - I slipped in the snow. (Yes, fencing in 12" of fresh powder.)
9% vision losses - doesn't happen in the SCA. mostly because of safety gear.
2% distracted
8% weapon dropped - 1 per 2 hours? under valued
4% Weapon damaged 1 per 4 hours? way too often
6% Hit friend
6% hit self - only had this happen twice; MoD/GMoF Nytshaed drove my dagger back into me on my failed parry. Never seen it happen on attacks.

Lose future rounds actions? A 12 second delay? You're hit before that.
Weapon damage? normally not seen on the field in SCA Heavy; normally, it's felt, and the weapon replaced. But this is rattan, not metal, and 1 per 40 hours to 1 per 80 hours. So... SCA Rapier? I've seen it rarely, never had it happen to me. SCA Cut and Thrust? 1 about every 100 hours. Usually on a parry, not an attack..

It's just WAY too often. And the lose next action is pretty much not happening in the SCA; The timing of the rounds is wrong.

It's also worth noting: Typical SCA 1-on-1 fights of the era did run 1/2 to 5 minutes for a duel... 5 min is 300 sec, or 25 rounds... with (from films) 1-2 min typical outside finals... but there are lulls... No game gets fights truly right.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've fought SCA Heavy for a couple years and SCA Rapier for over a cumulative decade, and been a participating member of the SCA for decades, spending a lot of time at the field's edge (Herald and Marshal) when not fighting. Steve and Ray's fumble rules are WAY beyond the pale. People very rarely hit themselves. Not even newbs. Drop the fumble rules, and it's more realistic than D&D; with them, it's far less realistic than D&D.

I'm going to just have to say they don't seem that far off of combat sports I participated in when I was younger either; I don't believe there's any way to show which set of experiences is more representative.

I also knew a couple SCAers who knew Steve and Ray... the mutual acquaintances also felt the fumbles fun but unrealistic. And that ascribes the probable reason for them: [b\They're fun, not realistic.[/b]

I will again note I had this specific conversation with Steve at one point, and his opinion was the same as the one I presented earlier; that the severety of some fumbles might have been excessive, but he did not consider the frequency or variety particularly wrong. Take that as you will.

 

[dragoner]

I agree that less mathy systems are going to be more inclusive. But I disagree that they're a sign of tighter game design. I think that level of mathiness and tightness are separate things.

Yes, also, rules can't fix bad players, they will still find a way to sabotage the game, no matter how tight the rules.

 

[Emirikol]

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4th edition has "Advantage" mechanic added in by someone "higher up."

If you love bewildering amounts of tracking the Advantage and large charts of criticals wfrp4e is for you!

Our group went back to 3e WFRP (which is REALLY saying something about crunchiness!).

 

[Sanguinarious]

Gurps, hero and a few other generics have been mentioned, one that hasn't been in EABA, a small niche generic game by BTRC that is pretty damn good really. It has a first and second edition and they have some real differences but both have some sweet crunch. You can download a free sample of the 1e that comprised the weapon design rules which should pique your interest.

You mentioned battlelords in the past tense, it's still alive and has a 7e, not to mention a ton of earlier stuff you can adapt to the new edition. You can also download samples of the new edition of battlelords.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though a warning; the way combat rounds are handled in the second edition of EABA, though I think it solves a problem common with both the first edition and GURPS, can take some getting used to.

 

[Staffan]

Dang, a bona fide double thread necromancy!