How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally

Reynard

Legend
The MCDM RPG campaign -- specifically the preview material on the backerkit page -- got me thinking about system crunch and where my personal limits are. So I thought I would put it up for discussion:

For you personally, what is your "crunch" limit in regards to RPGs? What level of moving parts, character abilities, rules subsystems, applied modifiers, etc... is too crunchy for you? What games would you say are where you top out? And does it matter whether you are a player versus a GM?

For my part, 5E is a little lighter than I generally like and am giving PF2ER a try soon as a GM to see if it is too much or not. Overall, I like having systems for things, but generally want them to be inutive and easy to remember. As a GM I don't really care for high PC crunch, but that is mostly because I play with a couple people that are very fond of and good at finding, er..., effective synergies.

At the same time, sometimes I want something super fast and clean like Shadowdark.

As to the MCDM game specifically: i think a lot of it will depend on how fiddly the core mechanics are. The Necromancer stat block looked just about right to me as far how much crunch I like in monsters as a GM, but since I don't know how statuses and such work, it is hard to tell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
For me, I think 5e is close to the right amount of crunch, but it doesn't always have it in the right places. I would rather have more opt-in subsystems for skill-challenge type exploration challenges, much better ship-to-ship combat, and something a bit more robust for larger-scale battles. But I think that magic goes far too far with every spell essentially being a little mini-rule. (I understand that that is a long-time D&Dism).

I'm definitely interested in systems that try to remix it, both lighter and stronger, but I'm (probably) more likely to enjoy Shadowdark over Pathfinder.

I'm curious about the MCDM game. I'm not sure if I'll back it or not. Probably.
 

I think my sweet spot is somewhere around entry-level 3e. That edition got more complex as it got older (with a reset at 3.5, followed by a race to complexity again), and was too much at the end. But with enough restrictions it seems just about right.

I'm particularly fond of the "Magic A is Magic A, Magic B is Magic B" crunchiness featured in that system. 5e lumps all magic together too much. I also liked the more tactical combat with bonuses instead of just advantage/disadvantage, but the complexity of the grapple system was admittedly a bit too far.
 


Lower-level 4E, like, before level 11 is probably my upper bound for crunch these days.

Oh and minus all the stuff that was in Dragon, which added endlessly to the complexity, particularly with Feats, for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

Like @FitzTheRuke says, 5E has about the right amount of crunch, it's just in the wrong places, for my money.

MCDM looks like it's pretty much exactly the right amount, but we shall see.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
For me, I think 5e is close to the right amount of crunch, but it doesn't always have it in the right places. I would rather have more opt-in subsystems for skill-challenge type exploration challenges, much better ship-to-ship combat, and something a bit more robust for larger-scale battles. But I think that magic goes far too far with every spell essentially being a little mini-rule. (I understand that that is a long-time D&Dism).

I'm definitely interested in systems that try to remix it, both lighter and stronger, but I'm (probably) more likely to enjoy Shadowdark over Pathfinder.

I'm curious about the MCDM game. I'm not sure if I'll back it or not. Probably.
My position is very similar. I am watching MCDM's efforts and also keeping an eye on DC20 and Daggerheart. I doubt I will back any of them but I may one of then after the come out when I know more. Seriously doubt I will get to play them though.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
It's hard to say, because it comes down to play. It if slows down play, I don't like it. I don't like when players are spending a long time figuring out what they can do or resolving the action because it's complex. I also don't care that much about keeping track of every torch and arrow either (encumbrance rules).
 

I don't have hard limits on the amount of crunch, but my preferred zone is somewhere between Broken Compass and Savage Worlds. In the D&D world, probably B/X is closest to my preferences, but 5e is also not far off - as for @FitzTheRuke, my main complaint with 5e's crunch is that it is unequally distributed and I would prefer more on the exploration and skill side and less on the combat and spell side.

Specifically for the MCDM game, I think I'm not the target audience (I like that it has a clear focus and is willing to go for its own system, but high fantasy with emphasis on tactical combat is not exactly enticing for me).
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Level of crunch? The less crunch the better. I’m happiest when the whole system can fit on one side of a 3x5 card in normal-sized writing…with room to spare. The referee’s side of the rules almost always boils down to make up stuff you think is fun and be fair. The only difference is how many words are used to say that.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top