Rules-Lite VS "Crunchy" TTRPG Systems

[Corinnguard]

Level Up adds another layer of crunchy goodness to 5e.

 

[GuardianLurker]

"Medium-crunch" is definitely a thing, even if it varies wildly. Not LITE && Not Heavy == Medium. Sadly, I haven't seen any better definition than that. I'd be nice if we could point to some objective weighting.

And while your point about "groking" a system reducing its perceived weight is well-taken, there are some systems that are just "Heavy". The best example I can think of in the "objectively Heavy" camp is Rolemaster - not so much for the resolution, but for all the details you need to deal with to get there, and that aren't easily abstracted away. And certainly, if you did a code-accurate implementation of something like WoW's combat, it would almost certainly qualify as well.

Conversely, being unable to "grok" a system dramatically increases its perceived weight. Despite the fact that are objectively rules-lite systems. Like Amber, or Tiny D6, or some of the others.

I just wish we had some objective, or taxonomic, way to actually separate "rules-light" from "crunch-heavy". Especially in the mid-regions.

Edit: I'd also point out that "Heavy" and "Light" also depend a LOT on what you've been exposed to. And as alluded to in the OP, light systems are becoming much more common, increasing the perceived weight of the systems people are aware of. There is also "setting crunch"/"gear crunch" and other factors complicating things. As mentioned earlier "250 pages of setting" and "only a few pages" of rules - a rules lite game, with a very crunchy setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My own view is that most rules-light systems fail for me twice or thrice over; they provide too little game engagement, they throw too much into the lap of the GM, and they usually give too little character definition tools.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Seeing as how the "rules-lite" systems have been gaining a lot of momentum over the past few years, I was curious to see what everyone's opinions on this style of TTRPG is, as compared to more traditional and/or "crunchy" style systems that people have become so used to for decades. Both obviously have their own pros and cons, with neither being objectively better than the other, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss and compare the two in a friendly matter.

Personally, I enjoy how easy it is to pick up, learn, and play most "rules-lite" systems are, especially if I'm teaching people who have little to no experience with TTRPGs in general. They can be considered a "gateway game" that can eventually lead to the finer details and complexity of "crunchy" TTRPG systems, when there is more time or interest from these kinds of players.

For me this is always cyclical. And I think it is a cyclical thing in the hobby as well. Sometimes I want crunchy mechanics. But after a while, I find myself wanting to go lighter and more flexible. I don't think there is a perfect level here for me. I need a variety to choose from depending on what I want to do for a campaign

 

[MGibster]

My friend was a bit miffed there wasn't more detailed combat rules, that combat was too lethal, and that there were not detailed vehicle and weapons rules. I was a bit confused because the themes I was after is the human condition in a sci-fi noir environment. They were looking at the rules as more of a all purpose general sci-fi-cyberpunk tool kit. That is what I expect to be crunchy when you have a generic system, not a specific one.

This is one of my particular pet peeves when it comes to criticizing any game regardless of genre or whether I even like it. Games like Bladerunner, Vampire the Masquerade, Dungeons & Dragons, Alien, and many others are simply not designed to be generic science fiction, horror, or fantasy games. The fact that D&D doesn't a good system to use for a Wheel of Time fantasy game isn't a knock against D&D because that's not what it was designed for. I get it. You might want a more generic game with vampries in it than Vampire offers, but that's not the game designer's fault. For a game like Bladerunner, I don't actually need rules for burning attack ships off the shoulder of Orion nor do I need to them for glittering C-Beams because that's not what we'll be focused on while playing the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Arguably, D&D 5e.

Though that only works when you don't consider exception based design to up the crunchiness of a game. The D&D spell system with all its special-casing alone has made that questionable for a very long time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is one of my particular pet peeves when it comes to criticizing any game regardless of genre or whether I even like it. Games like Bladerunner, Vampire the Masquerade, Dungeons & Dragons, Alien, and many others are simply not designed to be generic science fiction, horror, or fantasy games. The fact that D&D doesn't a good system to use for a Wheel of Time fantasy game isn't a knock against D&D because that's not what it was designed for. I get it. You might want a more generic game with vampries in it than Vampire offers, but that's not the game designer's fault. For a game like Bladerunner, I don't actually need rules for burning attack ships off the shoulder of Orion nor do I need to them for glittering C-Beams because that's not what we'll be focused on while playing the game.

The problem is that fans will still try to push some of these as though they were generic games of their genre, so that's sometimes what people expect. As an example, there are a lot of people who act like D&D is the all purpose fantasy game.

 

[grimmgoose]

This is a good example of the preference in action. I think the more one groks a system the more likely they are to declare it medium. I certainly dont think PF2 is "super heavy" and I dont think 5E is "heavy" compared to the examples above.

I think that’s true to a point. The system I have the most mastery with is 5E (been playing since 2016), but I would still consider it “heavy crunch”, due to the number of spells, rule interactions, specific-yet-obtuse rules, etc.

For example: 5E has well over 500+ spells. Savage Worlds has somewhere near 50-100. I think that’s a distinct enough difference to get it a different level of “crunch” (to me).

 

[DragonLancer]

I started in the 80s with red box basic D&D, 1st edition, Call of Cthulhu and moved on into 2nd edition. All of these are what I consider rules light. Character creation is simple. There is no complexity to the game realistically. 2nd sort of went towards crunch with the Complete guides added more and more, but I'd still err on the side of being light. 3rd edition and ultimately Pathfinder changed that. Suddenly there were rules to cover almost everything and my group/s jumped on it, despite us not being heavy into the optimisation (we would have said power gaming at the time). D&D 4 and 5 are no goes for us because they went back to the rules light format which just wasn't for us. At the time I don't think I could have gone back to the likes of 1st or 2nd edition.

That being said as I get older I'm finding that I want to find something something lighter than what we have been doing. After Sunday nights Daggerheart playtest, I think my group may have found it. I think that it will come down to individual groups and players as to what they feel is right for them.

 

[Reynard]

Though that only works when you don't consider exception based design to up the crunchiness of a game. The D&D spell system with all its special-casing alone has made that questionable for a very long time.

This underscores an element of the discussion that I think is important: the difference between complexity in the core system of a game (say, Shadowrun) and complexity that emerges from lots of options (D&D 3.x is a good example here, I think).