How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally

[W'rkncacnter]

i mean, i don't know exactly where my limit is - i like pf2e and dnd 4e a lot.

i do know that wherever my limit is, JAGS is way beyond it. that system is...definitely something...

 

[GMMichael]

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?

I start thinking about other reading material when a game has a "core mechanic." That's a sure sign that I'm about to wade through lots of jargon and dry writing.

And if the character sheets are easier to fill out in Excel than by hand, count me out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unless you are playing a game with a player facing mechanic, why are you arguing with the GM? You said what you wanted to do and the GM told you what to roll. That's the deal. If the GM is bad at that, you do it.

That's a view of the GM/player interrelationship I do not share. I reserve the right to question the GM's decision. I expect my players to do the same.

(Yes, this is hyperbolic. My point is that "light" can still mean "traditional" and in that style authority rests with the GM.)

To be blunt, ask me how much I care. The overly top-down tendencies in trad games I've been arguing against for decades.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Tactical team based in combat. Otherwise, not much different than PF1/D&D.

And, arguably, more focus on decisions in combat than during character generation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

i mean, i don't know exactly where my limit is - i like pf2e and dnd 4e a lot.

i do know that wherever my limit is, JAGS is way beyond it. that system is...definitely something...

Its probably the various quirks of the damage and other parts of the combat system. The rest of the system isn't that heavy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, I treat RPGs like they are movies. I want to visualize what my character is doing and wants to do, with a knowledge of what the result would look like were I to succeed at it without any problems. But then, to add in drama and conflict to keep things interesting and on our toes... if there's a reason (any reason) why it might not work, do a very simple mechanical bit to toss the narrative wrench in. A simple skill check works fine. Then based upon the result of that simple check and an illustration by the GM as to what that "narrative wrench" was... I can now visualize where my character is in "the movie" and thus make a new reaction to the new situation.

For me, mechanics aren't there to "play a game", they are there to throw hiccups or bonuses into the story. So how "crunchy" those mechanics should be is based upon what kind of definitive or creative hiccups/bonuses they are capable of giving us. If all a mechanic is doing is giving us a 'Yes / No' answer... then it shouldn't be more than a single die roll with the least amount of calculation of modifiers for the player based on their character. But if it's a game that writes out narrative results on large charts to provide us with the specific hiccups or bonuses (like in Rolemaster, the Warhammer 40K RPG and the like)... then I'm okay with it being a bit more involved mechanically as it is working towards getting us to the next narrative point.

That being said... I recognize that Dungeons & Dragons has always had a 'tactical miniatures combat game' inside of its RPG... so if those rules have more complexity to make the "board game" work well and be more compelling / interesting from a gameplay perspective, that's fine. If I have to play a board game inside of my RPG, I'd rather that game be more Puerto Rico or Everdell than Sorry! or Trouble in terms of strategy and tactics. But the stuff outside of the 'tactical miniatures combat game' in D&D? Like the Exploration or Social pillars? Should be just as quick and easy and uncomplicated as what I talked about above.

 

[Reynard]

To be blunt, ask me how much I care. The overly top-down tendencies in trad games I've been arguing against for decades.

That is a separate issue from crunch level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My preference is enough crunch on the player side to get a reasonably accurate model of what the PC can do, and excessive crunch on the GM side to cover every setting situation (or at least as many as possible) as needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a view of the GM/player interrelationship I do not share. I reserve the right to question the GM's decision. I expect my players to do the same.

Do you reserve the right to question the player's decisions?

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is a separate issue from crunch level.

Its not a separate issue from what you brought up.