How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally

[Sanjurotokage]

I used to be okay with crunchy like Cyberpunk in the past (pre-2000) but given that I find myself restricted by time - I favour simpler systems with more on narrative than dice and maths

 

[Carnun]

FitD and PbtA games have spoiled me. I won't run games anymore that aren't player-facing (I'm usually the GM for my group). I'll play D&D 5E but I won't run it.

 

[thullgrim]

GURPS at the high-end. Savage Worlds at the low-end. The sweet spot is Pathfinder 1e core rulebook.

 

[Reynard]

FitD and PbtA games have spoiled me. I won't run games anymore that aren't player-facing (I'm usually the GM for my group). I'll play D&D 5E but I won't run it.

Is "player facing" inherently tied to light versus crunchy?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My crunch threshold is pretty darn high. Level Up is close to what I want. I'd probably really enjoy Rolemaster (I certainly enjoyed my read of MERP) and/or Harnmaster (which I am working up the will to shell out for).

 

[MacDhomnuill]

100% depends on where the complexity sits with in the game. Character gen is a place I have a high tolerance for complexity (I like life path systems that feed into skill based play systems). At the table I want the game to provide enough granularity to support the setting and some depth of play (meaningful tactical choices) but it needs to get out of the way most of the time.

My current goto games that fit what I am looking for are Dragonbane (or really any BRP derivative) for fantasy, and classic or Cepheus traveller for modern/scifi.

I think I am in the minority that finds DnD5e to be on the “crunchy” end of the scale, the sheer amount of spells, feats, and class abilities makes for a lot of rules interactions at the table. I also think most narrative games are also crunchy with the way they generally use moves, meta currencies, etc with again lots of fiddly interactions.

 

[Deset Gled]

Is "player facing" inherently tied to light versus crunchy?

I'm pretty sure this is a case of correlation vs causation. AFAIK there's nothing inherently requiring these to be lighter on crunch, but in practice they generally are. Ditto for FKR.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

My crunch threshold is pretty darn high. Level Up is close to what I want. I'd probably really enjoy Rolemaster (I certainly enjoyed my read of MERP) and/or Harnmaster (which I am working up the will to shell out for).

Role master and Harnmaster are IMHO not very crunchy in play (I am in the minority here but I have also actually played them), character gen is detailed but in play its usually making a percentile roll for skills. Sure combat gets detailed but it usually doesn't last very long and the injury tables provide lots of role play fuel (until the PC dies from an infected wound).

 

[James Gasik]

Rolemaster and Harnmaster ended up being a bridge too far when we tried them back in the day. Too much math and recording. BRP has been just about right for a long while now.

I can second this. Rolemaster is waaay too crunchy for my tastes. Ditto for GURPS.

I like the wealth of options in say, 3.5 for Pathfinder 1e (but take serious exception to the "there's a feat for that" approach to it's design. Don't tell me my character can disarm or grapple or trip, then make the rules so tedious to use without specialization that it's not even an option!.

 

[James Gasik]

Role master and Harnmaster are IMHO not very crunchy in play (I am in the minority here but I have also actually played them), character gen is detailed but in play its usually making a percentile roll for skills. Sure combat gets detailed but it usually doesn't last very long and the injury tables provide lots of role play fuel (until the PC dies from an infected wound).

That wasn't my experience, but I will admit I only played one campaign of Rolemaster. I knew it wasn't the game for me when I began to dread the leveling up process.

Runequest is another game that I found to be a little too fiddly with it's combat rules.