D&D General How much crunch do you want in combat?

[Reynard]

I want to get rid of monster stats entirely, in favor of a progress track like system with built in effects and consequences. I got castigated on these boards for suggesting the same thing Sly Flourish does: hit point pools, or encounter hit points. But I really think it would improve the game. It allows things like hordes of mooks and terribly overpowered bosses with some specific weakness, as well as embracing player creativity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ugh! I absolutely want to protest this poll. Starting with the least important:

• AD&D had more crunch than 5e. Its crunch wasn't that useful - but things like entirely separate submechanics for saving throws, NWPs, every stat working differently, the fiddliness of THAC0, different damage vs medium and large creatures, and the like are all crunch.
• Hit point bloat is not the same as crunch. Bloat just makes things take longer. And is a problem.
• More importantly I want crunch appropriate for the results with more in depth results being worth more crunch. And the results I care about are in-character decisions, primarily:
  • Risk/Reward balances; taking a risk that may pay off to get a better result.
  • Demonstration of values; dealing with dilemmas to show what I think of as important
  • Inter-party interactions and teamwork
  • Solving tactical problems.

In 4e my decision to deliberately provoke an opportunity attack by someone the fighter had marked so I could either move into flanking position or run down one of the ranged attackers, forcing them to attack using low rather than high damage just isn't one I'm making in 5e. Neither is the one to team up to throw the enemies into their own pit traps or to force the enemies into a bunch so the wizard AoE landed on them all. In 5e I'm barely making these tactical character-interactive, and risk/reward decisions or solving tactical problems, just pounding on monsters and playing patty-cake until they run out of hp. Due to the finesse, thrown weapon, and disadvantage rules there's barely any advantage in meleeing archers (they just draw shortswords or scimitars doing a single point less damage on average), kiting ogres (they just throw things at you doing 2 points less damage on average), or meleeing spellcasters (they take no penalty for spells that attack saving throws). And one improvement One D&D is making is bringing back forced movement, thus encouraging teamwork.

Meanwhile Apocalypse World has less crunch and much faster combat than 5e - but just about every roll I make has me making a risk-reward decision, showing what I value, or working with an ally. Or a mix of the above.

 

[overgeeked]

I want to get rid of monster stats entirely, in favor of a progress track like system with built in effects and consequences. I got castigated on these boards for suggesting the same thing Sly Flourish does: hit point pools, or encounter hit points. But I really think it would improve the game. It allows things like hordes of mooks and terribly overpowered bosses with some specific weakness, as well as embracing player creativity.

Check out Doctors & Daleks. It has a great encounter budget system.