How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Purple sorcerer doesn't have Dying Lands content. DCC core has quite good VTT support and Purple Sorcerer is a very help resource. I'm hoping that, in time, Dying Lands content becomes available for the VTTs that offer DCC support and/or in Purple Sorcerer. I just wasn't up for doing the work myself at this time. If I could run at a table, I would likely be fine running from printed materials. But for running online, I just wanted something ready to go. But I certainly don't intend my Dying Earth set go unused forever.
aramis erak
Legend
In re player facing mechanics vs Complexity
Dragonlance 5th age is less complex than D&D, but more complex than its mechanical sibling, Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game; DL5A has 9 suits, 8 atts, and is player facing, while MSHAG has 5 suits and 4 atts, and is mostly opposed play of cards. This makes MSHAG much easier to use the PC gen sequence for NPCs, too...
Re WFRP
WFRP 1E: 1d100 ≤ (either Attribute or 10× attribute, by attribute). M, S, T range 1-10, W 1-20, and A about 1-5. WS, BS, I, Int CL, WP, FEL 12-120. Skills fall into categories: +1 attribute, Eliminates a penalty, provides a +10 or +20 (by which skill), provides a special ability. Careers allow a maximum alteration from original rolled attribute while in them.
WFRP 2e: all atts nominally 1-100; skills avoid a halving at first rank, and add up to 20 with additional levels. Careers similar to 1E. Fewer atts. Shifts damage from d6's, d4's, and d3's to d10's and d4's.
WFRP 3E 1-15 range for atts, fewer still, different career system, uses custom dice (a few too many types)... good, but also tied to component heavy playstyle and collectorism as much of the material in older core was only in supplements. And the supplements all added more cards. I enjoy it, but it's got issues.
WFRP 4: basically, like WFRP 2e, but with skills to a max +40, and instead of +5 per attribute gain and (US = ×½) +0/+10/+20 for skills, to 1 per raise on each. Combat almost eliminates missing. Careers far more linear than any prior.
Soulbound: d6 count successes on 6. Not the same setting as the others.
To answer the OP's question
For me, the «compile time» vs «runtime complexity» is a significant element.
«Compile Time» complexity
More and more, I dislike mathy «compile time». It's the numbers of calculations more than the complexity of the individual calculations; GURPS is over my tolerance and has been since about 1995.
The limit for me is Rolemaster: the edition I have, using only the ChL/CaL, SL, and AL/CL, with RMC 1 ONLY, is fine, to a point. No secondary skills. It's more math than my players currently would tolerate. It's just a lot easier to use a classless system. In play, it's very much classes don't matter - they just affect the cost of skills and spells. Hefty «compile», fast and simple «runtime» (provided 3 digit +2 digit chain addition isn't a problem - a simple 4-Fucntion calculator per player is a great play aid) and one doesn't use tableless combat (RMC 1), Breaking 150, nor the separate initiative/action costs options.
Hero System I'd run again if the idea of multiplication and division of fractions didn't scare half my current players. If I were to use it, first use would be a mundane Semi-Mythic Greece. It has more complex calculations than GURPS, but about 1/3 to 1/4 as many for non-(supers/casters/monsters).
I really like the character gen systems for: Star Trek Adventures, Firefly, all the YZE games I've read except Forbidden Lands (which is probably why I've not tried to get FL to table), Sentinel Comics, Street Fighter, and VTM 1e
I like but find cumbersome the CGen for Prime Directive 1E, Dresden Files, CORPS 1E/2E, MegaTraveller.
«Runtime Complexity» my sweet spot is Mouse Guard - there is exceptionally good advice on difficulties (if a bit rigid), the conflict mechanic is super flexible (if a bit too abstract for some), most uses of skills are mechanically covered in simple ways. Plus its GMing adventure format is a brilliant bit.
Year Zero engine is fine in every flavor I've run; 2d20 likewise.
Prime Directive 1E is the limit of math crunch in play for me. My current players would find it a bit too mathy. (doing 3 column single + {single or double} digit additions/subtractions. Frequently)
Rolemaster or Spacemaster in play are table heavy; that's an issue, but one I'm good with. It's a solvable one, but it's still an issue. MERP was better - fewer tables, but the same general lack of actual in-play complexity aside from tables.
If I need a calculator in play, from time to time, I don't mind. If I can't run the game without one, too much.
D&D 5E is, for me, way to many special cases on an otherwise solid system. The player base, the tropes common, and the directions the publisher has been going have moved it from "alright, I can run it if y'all want" to "Don't ask for it. I'm done with them."
I've always liked the medium-light rules, but don't mind higher complexity when it pays off in play.
Unisystem Lite (Buffy, Angel, Army of Darkness, Ghosts of Albion) is slightly crunchier than D&D 5E core with all player facing rolls, but this requires a good bit more prep for the GM, as the core mechanic is essentially always opposed rolls, but NPCs (including monsters) always roll a 6, and this is bound into their action value.
Dragonlance 5th age is less complex than D&D, but more complex than its mechanical sibling, Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game; DL5A has 9 suits, 8 atts, and is player facing, while MSHAG has 5 suits and 4 atts, and is mostly opposed play of cards. This makes MSHAG much easier to use the PC gen sequence for NPCs, too...
I've always run D&D as Fantasy Medieval Super Heroes. That's always how it's come across to me. I didn't realize that for the first decade, but looking back, I ran it as FMSH.
Re WFRP
Which edition?
WFRP 1E: 1d100 ≤ (either Attribute or 10× attribute, by attribute). M, S, T range 1-10, W 1-20, and A about 1-5. WS, BS, I, Int CL, WP, FEL 12-120. Skills fall into categories: +1 attribute, Eliminates a penalty, provides a +10 or +20 (by which skill), provides a special ability. Careers allow a maximum alteration from original rolled attribute while in them.
WFRP 2e: all atts nominally 1-100; skills avoid a halving at first rank, and add up to 20 with additional levels. Careers similar to 1E. Fewer atts. Shifts damage from d6's, d4's, and d3's to d10's and d4's.
WFRP 3E 1-15 range for atts, fewer still, different career system, uses custom dice (a few too many types)... good, but also tied to component heavy playstyle and collectorism as much of the material in older core was only in supplements. And the supplements all added more cards. I enjoy it, but it's got issues.
WFRP 4: basically, like WFRP 2e, but with skills to a max +40, and instead of +5 per attribute gain and (US = ×½) +0/+10/+20 for skills, to 1 per raise on each. Combat almost eliminates missing. Careers far more linear than any prior.
Soulbound: d6 count successes on 6. Not the same setting as the others.
To answer the OP's question
For me, the «compile time» vs «runtime complexity» is a significant element.
«Compile Time» complexity
More and more, I dislike mathy «compile time». It's the numbers of calculations more than the complexity of the individual calculations; GURPS is over my tolerance and has been since about 1995.
The limit for me is Rolemaster: the edition I have, using only the ChL/CaL, SL, and AL/CL, with RMC 1 ONLY, is fine, to a point. No secondary skills. It's more math than my players currently would tolerate. It's just a lot easier to use a classless system. In play, it's very much classes don't matter - they just affect the cost of skills and spells. Hefty «compile», fast and simple «runtime» (provided 3 digit +2 digit chain addition isn't a problem - a simple 4-Fucntion calculator per player is a great play aid) and one doesn't use tableless combat (RMC 1), Breaking 150, nor the separate initiative/action costs options.
Hero System I'd run again if the idea of multiplication and division of fractions didn't scare half my current players. If I were to use it, first use would be a mundane Semi-Mythic Greece. It has more complex calculations than GURPS, but about 1/3 to 1/4 as many for non-(supers/casters/monsters).
I really like the character gen systems for: Star Trek Adventures, Firefly, all the YZE games I've read except Forbidden Lands (which is probably why I've not tried to get FL to table), Sentinel Comics, Street Fighter, and VTM 1e
I like but find cumbersome the CGen for Prime Directive 1E, Dresden Files, CORPS 1E/2E, MegaTraveller.
«Runtime Complexity» my sweet spot is Mouse Guard - there is exceptionally good advice on difficulties (if a bit rigid), the conflict mechanic is super flexible (if a bit too abstract for some), most uses of skills are mechanically covered in simple ways. Plus its GMing adventure format is a brilliant bit.
Year Zero engine is fine in every flavor I've run; 2d20 likewise.
Prime Directive 1E is the limit of math crunch in play for me. My current players would find it a bit too mathy. (doing 3 column single + {single or double} digit additions/subtractions. Frequently)
Rolemaster or Spacemaster in play are table heavy; that's an issue, but one I'm good with. It's a solvable one, but it's still an issue. MERP was better - fewer tables, but the same general lack of actual in-play complexity aside from tables.
If I need a calculator in play, from time to time, I don't mind. If I can't run the game without one, too much.
D&D 5E is, for me, way to many special cases on an otherwise solid system. The player base, the tropes common, and the directions the publisher has been going have moved it from "alright, I can run it if y'all want" to "Don't ask for it. I'm done with them."
I've always liked the medium-light rules, but don't mind higher complexity when it pays off in play.
Wolfpack48
Adventurer
I actually prefer to look at the flashy vs seen-but-not-heard scale. The more the system blends into the background, the better I like it. I bounce off a system that draws more attention to itself than the setting or adventure.
Last edited:
ShinHakkaider
Adventurer
I guess I'm the opposite of a lot of people here, I don’t like and pretty much refuse to play rules light systems unless I know and REALLY trust the person running them. Too much GM fiat and making things up as we go along. I don’t mind SOME of that as no system is going to be able to cover every situation but I find that too many rules light systems pass too much of the processing on to the GM.
I grew up playing crunch heavy games like GURPS and HERO System and Role-Master and Palladium. When I was younger in my teen years I was AWFUL at math, EXCEPT when it came to RPG’s.. I was working out Mekton Zeta’s system for constructing mecha from scratch all because I wanted to build my own version of the Original Auge or the L-Gaim MkII from Juusenki L-Gaim.
My games of preference for Fantasy TTRPG’s are Pathfinder 1e and 2e. I’m not afraid of the options those games present and I’d argue that PF2e is considerable LESS crunchy than PF1e. If I was going to run a superhero game it would be Mutants and Masterminds and not some barely there rules light game. All of this is fine as because it self-selects the audience for the games I’m interested in playing and running. Not to sound like a snob but I’d just as soon as not play with anyone who balks at basic addition and subtraction being too much math. This is not me inviting debate, it’s just my preference.
I've also found that when teaching new players crunchier games it's best to take a lot of the initial processing off of their plate and only focus on the essentials for the game and just EASE them into things. So pre-made character sheets, different kinds of encounters that focus on specific mechanics so they get an idea of how things work. I don't abandon them to figure out / calculate certain things on their own. It's a team based game usually so at the table we're also a team when a player needs help. Then as the games / sessions progress we start to off-load more and more back on to the player as they get more comfortable with things.
I grew up playing crunch heavy games like GURPS and HERO System and Role-Master and Palladium. When I was younger in my teen years I was AWFUL at math, EXCEPT when it came to RPG’s.. I was working out Mekton Zeta’s system for constructing mecha from scratch all because I wanted to build my own version of the Original Auge or the L-Gaim MkII from Juusenki L-Gaim.
My games of preference for Fantasy TTRPG’s are Pathfinder 1e and 2e. I’m not afraid of the options those games present and I’d argue that PF2e is considerable LESS crunchy than PF1e. If I was going to run a superhero game it would be Mutants and Masterminds and not some barely there rules light game. All of this is fine as because it self-selects the audience for the games I’m interested in playing and running. Not to sound like a snob but I’d just as soon as not play with anyone who balks at basic addition and subtraction being too much math. This is not me inviting debate, it’s just my preference.
I've also found that when teaching new players crunchier games it's best to take a lot of the initial processing off of their plate and only focus on the essentials for the game and just EASE them into things. So pre-made character sheets, different kinds of encounters that focus on specific mechanics so they get an idea of how things work. I don't abandon them to figure out / calculate certain things on their own. It's a team based game usually so at the table we're also a team when a player needs help. Then as the games / sessions progress we start to off-load more and more back on to the player as they get more comfortable with things.
Warpiglet-7
Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
Generally adding bonuses which don’t really have grounding in the game seem superfluous.
A +1 to skills from many sources but which are very situational (some turn off or on and you tabulate a lot) “nope, this only applies when the social encounter is related to buying things” does not evoke anything and takes me out of it.
Fiddly and non impactful is more an issue to me and especially if we are not using bounded accuracy…
Another +1 added to my +18 from many sources for a roll total in the 30s…
Not worth the headspace….does not evoke anything at some point but an accounting firm
A +1 to skills from many sources but which are very situational (some turn off or on and you tabulate a lot) “nope, this only applies when the social encounter is related to buying things” does not evoke anything and takes me out of it.
Fiddly and non impactful is more an issue to me and especially if we are not using bounded accuracy…
Another +1 added to my +18 from many sources for a roll total in the 30s…
Not worth the headspace….does not evoke anything at some point but an accounting firm
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Just don’t tell anyone the bad guys’ numbers go up to match the PCs’ numbers resulting in the illusion of progression in 99% of crunchy games.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Let’s put it this way. I’d never run (or probably play) 3.xE DND again. But at the same time 5e is short on crunch in some areas for me. (For example we use the flanking options and have houseruled penalties for firing into melee).
I think it comes down to granularity to me. Crunch is okay as long as it doesn’t get as granular as 3e.
I don’t think the MCDM game will be for me because the level of active crunch to remember seems 4eish, which does not appeal to me.
I think it comes down to granularity to me. Crunch is okay as long as it doesn’t get as granular as 3e.
I don’t think the MCDM game will be for me because the level of active crunch to remember seems 4eish, which does not appeal to me.
Last edited:
Argyle King
Legend
It depends upon where the crunch is focused and whether I find the overall outcome of the rules to be intuitive.
I like GURPS 4E, so I'm good with that.
I also was introduced to D&D via D&D 3.5, so I enjoy playing that game. However, I find DMing high level 3.5 (and sometimes Pathfinder) more complicated than GURPS. So, oddly, I'm good with GURPS but iffy on high level D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder.
GURPS: After the End hits a good sweet spot of having the crunch and options I want from GURPS but also having enough of the pieces pre-assembled that it's easy to teach to others.
I like GURPS 4E, so I'm good with that.
I also was introduced to D&D via D&D 3.5, so I enjoy playing that game. However, I find DMing high level 3.5 (and sometimes Pathfinder) more complicated than GURPS. So, oddly, I'm good with GURPS but iffy on high level D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder.
GURPS: After the End hits a good sweet spot of having the crunch and options I want from GURPS but also having enough of the pieces pre-assembled that it's easy to teach to others.
Just as an aside: I don't think those are inherently related. You can prep rules lite and improv high crunch.
Similar Threads
