D&D 5E How crunchy is D&D 5E

[cbwjm]

I put down 6, though thinking about it in comparison to earlier editions and the pathfinder games I've now changed it to 5. 3e/4e I'd probably put around 7 or 8 so I needed room for them in the upper numbers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think it's too crunchy to be properly "Rules Medium," but definitely not crunchy enough to be "Rules Heavy," so 6 is the only workable option.

The main problem with 5e vis-a-vis most "Rules Medium" games is how much it emphasizes the "ask your DM" side of things. That's usually a feature of ultra-light games (albeit ones that still have some rules), but 5e is frankly aggressive about making the DM responsible for actively approving or denying absolutely every rule no matter what, despite having a fair number of rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is so true. As someone who pretty much left the hobby after 2E, then drifted back in with 5E, I know I find 5E harder to DM than I ever did 1 or 2E.

I know I've frequently complained that for all it's excellent for the players to make characters in 5e the DM's side of the table is nowhere near as good. And I've noticed that although the DM to Player ratio is nowhere near its 3.X nadir it has absolutely plummeted from its 4e high.

 

[Laurefindel]

Voted 6; crunchier than most RPGs I know, not as much as some other that I know.

it went down a notch from 3.x/PF1, bringing it back into the (upper tier of) sweet spot for me

 

[Parmandur]

7 - light end of the crunchier game spectrum.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think so. If you take one spell from a list of 5 or a list of 5000 or a lot of 5,000,000, you still only have to know how one spell works.

I believe the counterpoint is that to pick which spell, you need to look at the whole list - it's a lot easier to pick feats in 5e than PF1. In this specific case, 5e is less crunchy even if it's just as complex.

 

[Weiley31]

It's "technically" variable as there are a number of Subsystems within 5E that can be added/removed/ignored and the on again/off again rules lite nature of 5E with its focus on refluffing, rulings not rules, and materials can make 5E as crunchy or light as you want.

 

[Aldarc]

I think that 5e is somewhere between 6 and 7 in the crunch factor, but I rounded up to 7.

That's true. But when you sit down with a player to have them choose a spell, they still face 5, 5000 or 5000000 options that they, theorically, have to go through to make a well-informed decision. It doesn't add rules, but definitely adds weight. It's a matter of perspective, but for me, if you had a very simple game with only a few rules but with 2000 different spells to choose from, I would not consider it a lite game. The complexity of your rules and the amount of information you have to parse through are both factors of crunchiness/heaviness for me.

There is also the issue of potential rules interactions between those various spells. As @Umbran suggests, these are a lot of moving parts.

Sure. But that's not a complex game, it's just one with a big selection. As I said, I don't consider that rules heavy.

We disagree on the definition.

Then why poll us at all? Just declare that 5e is not that crunchy and be done with the kangaroo court.

 

[Morrus]

Then why poll us at all? Just declare that 5e is not that crunchy and be done with the kangaroo court.

What an odd thing to say.

We’re just having a conversation, dude.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I voted 5, but since 5E can be just as easily played with the hardcovers or the online free basic rules or the Starter or Essentials box sets, I thought about rating it a 4.