D&D 5E To Crunch or not to Crunch?

[pming]

Hiya!

Well, @MoonSong, I figured why not? I mean, if someone is ashamed to say one thing or the other then maybe that person should re-evaluate their decision because obviously something isn't sitting right with them.

Personally I haven't voted yet, and not sure if I should...but if I was to do it I'd probably pick the middle one. "Just Crunchy enough". Some crunch I don't care for, some crunch I may like, but overall I think the amount that WotC is putting out (e.g., not much) is a nice middle-ground.

For specific rule 'crunch' that I'd like to see...I'd like to see an optional skill system that is divorced from leveling up and the class system (so skills that a person learns and gets better at via using and such...not because they are level X or of class Y), I'd also like to see some more in-depth stuff for building and running businesses, manors, guild halls, castles, towers, keeps, etc (allowing for destruction/repair of such via sieges, natural disasters, etc).

For stuff I don't want to see...nit-picky special-snowflake-situational stuff. Typically this comes into play via subsystems that are there almost exclusively for some particular class, race or monster.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Guest 6801718]

I went with the "keep things they way they are" option. I don't think I'd be very interested in books that were just crunch. Though I like how they do things now. When you get some setting material or a new adventure path, you can get a few new crunch options to help capture the flavor of the book. SCAG was a lot more fluff than crunch. The crunch we got was some new class options, backgrounds and spells that were unique to the realms. That kind of thing is just fine with me. If they release some Eberron material and want to give us a finalized Artificer, cool. If they do some Dark Sun material and throw in Psionics like the Mystic, sounds good to me. I just want to avoid they days of Martial Power 23 and the Complete Book of Dwarves vol. 14. I don't want to see crunch for the sake of crunch. If there is something unique presented in a new campaign book or adventure path, then the crunch is welcome.

 

[dco]

More crunch, but where I think it needs it, more character and combat options, less spells when a lot of them are a ray of fire, cold, poison, acid, etc changing a mechanic and a later level update, 83 pages of this is awful.

 

[FrogReaver]

As if the only possible explanation for a poster wanting a private poll is because he is ashamed....

I guess that must mean your ashamed for not voting in your own poll

Hiya!

Well, @MoonSong, I figured why not? I mean, if someone is ashamed to say one thing or the other then maybe that person should re-evaluate their decision because obviously something isn't sitting right with them.

Personally I haven't voted yet, and not sure if I should...but if I was to do it I'd probably pick the middle one. "Just Crunchy enough". Some crunch I don't care for, some crunch I may like, but overall I think the amount that WotC is putting out (e.g., not much) is a nice middle-ground.

For specific rule 'crunch' that I'd like to see...I'd like to see an optional skill system that is divorced from leveling up and the class system (so skills that a person learns and gets better at via using and such...not because they are level X or of class Y), I'd also like to see some more in-depth stuff for building and running businesses, manors, guild halls, castles, towers, keeps, etc (allowing for destruction/repair of such via sieges, natural disasters, etc).

For stuff I don't want to see...nit-picky special-snowflake-situational stuff. Typically this comes into play via subsystems that are there almost exclusively for some particular class, race or monster.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[JeffB]

So now we get to have a year long argument over what precisely constitutes crunch... JOY!

This has been going on here since 1999. Better find your Sea Legs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So now we get to have a year long argument over what precisely constitutes crunch... JOY!

Here's the most technical definition of "crunch" I could find:

"... a property manifested by a tendency when subjected to an applied force to yield suddenly with a characteristic sound. ... usually associated with sharp triangular curves displaying an obvious break point (when tested individually) or produce a 'jagged' multi-peak curve when tested 'in bulk'. The number of peaks produced are as a result of the fracture events that have occurred during the test. Counting the number of force peaks, the average dropoff and measuring linear distance are common calculations applied to such curves.... [ "Crunch" is ] usually associated with many [] fracture peaks [with] the drop from peak to trough [significant] and the linear distance increased accordingly."

Hope that helps. ;|

Exactly why did this poll had to be public??

Maybe it's my settings, but I don't see any names associated with it.

But, really, all three answers are subject to potential shaming - munchkin, apologist, or grognard.

By attaching names to the poll options the OP is unwittingly drawing a line in the sand that invites like-minded people while painting the opposition as extremists. The option isn't "More crunch pliz", instead is "Open the floodgates let's drown in crunch!"

I don't think you could drown in crunch. You might choke on fluff, though.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION], hehe...no, not the only reason. I was just trying to think of a reason on why it would matter to a somewhat anonymous person (probably) online is all. To be honest I didn't even think of it when making the poll. I suppose if I'm going to err on one side or the other, I'll go with "open and transparent" every time.

...Ok, fine. I'll choose an option, just for you.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[JCraigmile]

I, for one, love all things crunchy. Looking back over the years at other editions, some of my absolutely favorite books are very crunch-oriented- The original Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, and the monster books from the old First Ed AD&D days. Second Ed had its share of crunchy but good Players Option books and the Spell Encyclopedias which I still have on my bookshelf today. Third edition... Just the stuff from WotC alone, maybe too much, but arguably some of the best crunchy stuff ever. I had three players who nigh onto overused the Dragon Compendium. Fourth Ed, for as many people who kinda look down on it, had PHB2 and PHB3.

Having recently gotten back into D&D after a long hiatus, it seems WotC has been mostly contented three core books, a lot of fluffy modules, and a newfound reliance on fan generated material of sorts. I think a couple of crunchier​ books detailing spells, magic items, class variants, and various conversions from other editions' successes would be very appropriate and welcome. Other than monster and spell books, maybe they could roll the rest up into one book, like the old Unearthed Arcana or Tome of Magic? I think oversaturating the game with short, brown-covered books for each class and race would be overkill Defining two or three races or race variants in any given sourcebook along with a new archetype for each class, some converted weapons from prior editions, and some other odds and ends would be perfectly sellable.

Sent from my LG-H901 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's hard for me to say, as I basically want them to release a defined set of new crunch, and then almost entirely fluff for the rest of the life of the game. I like to have a complete ruleset, not an ever growing one. (I know, I know, the only way to get that in D&D is with the old Rules Cyclopedia, but we're talking about what we want to see here.)

But that's because I'm all about settings, lore, and world-building in D&D. Every time a new subclass is introduced to the game it potentially changes the nature of my setting. Hmm...we have this Oath of the Crown paladin oath. I don't see anything wrong with it, but where does it fit in my world? Most subclasses, for instance, have actual setting identity for me--they aren't just mechanical tools to represent a character. A cleric is a priest, and they are invested with their Domain in a holy ceremony granting them their powers. Most deities only have one domain, and those who grant more than one grant them to different orders of priesthood. So if they toss in 15 new domains (especially if they are good ones!) then I have to retroactively adjust my world so that the priest of such and so really got this new domain instead of that old less appropriate domain, or I have to choose not to use them (and if they are good new options, then I want to use them). It requires me to make a hard choice. New material for an RPG shouldn't require deep pondering and consideration to determine whether to add it to your game, IMO. So far, the published expansions (SCAG and Elemental Evil Guide) have been okay, though I think the Pact of the Undying is a bit of a stretch and I don't have every race from EE in my world. But every time they make another subclass it potentially requires me to retcon my world, and that just isn't a feature to me.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I would like some more crunch but not for crunch sake.
So no complete book of X where they are just coming up with subclasses to fill a book.

But for example something more like a book about desert cultures, that has subclasses, magic items. rules options monters and feats for runing a adventure/campaign in a desert area.