What is a "Light" RPG? What is a "Crunchy" RPG?

[mamba]

So why then did you tag it as narrative?

In hindsight I should not have, that is why in the post after I said it is too little to go on. I did because it basically is the PbtA resolution system

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, we might as well do this.

What do you consider a "rules light" RPG and what do you consider a "crunchy" rpg? What re the parameters? What are good examples of either? What games hiot the sweet spot for you as to level of light versus crunch?

Crunchy: 3.5, Pathfinder, Lancer (it felt a lot crunchier than it prolly was)

Light: Blades in the Dark, PbtA games, Shadowdark, DCC

Ultra Light (Yes, I’m creating a new category that works for me): One pager games like Honey Heist, The Quiet Year, Dread

I think 5e is on the crunchy side but not as crunchy as 3.5 and PF.

 

[ProfessorDetective]

My criteria tends to be based on how much additional material is tacked onto the system's core math (read: usually "XdX + Bonuses = Target").

If it's mostly JUST the core math and the barest setting/customization, that's an ultralight game (24XX).

If it's got an actual list of skills and gear, it's a light game (Mothership, Fate).

If it's got a long list of skills/gear and/or actual classes, you've got a medium game (Fifth Edition, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder 2E, StoryPath).

Dozens of skills/gear/spells/feats/subsystems: you've got a heavy game (Third Edition/Pathfinder 1E, Traveller, Cyberpunk 2020).

If it has a write-up on pretty much every possible action you could take, it's an ultraheavy game (Rolemaster, GURPS).

I prefer medium or lower, myself.

 

[pemerton]

My favourite "light" RPG is Prince Valiant. Action resolution is almost uniform (the mass combat rules are a bit of an exception), PCs are defined by ranks in two attributes and 29 skills, and play moves very quickly and colourfully.

Lighter RPGs that I've enjoyed are Cthulhu Dark and Wuthering Heights (each only a few pages of rules), but I've not tried these in extended/campaign style.

Any system with distinct subsystems across different characters I would consider heavy/"crunchy" - so all modern versions of D&D. Likewise systems that involve multiple steps or lookups in action resolution (so Rolemaster and Burning Wheel would both count as "crunchy").

A mid-level game, in my view, would be Classic Traveller.

I've got no preferred degree of rules complexity: I've played and enjoyed all the RPGs mentioned in this post.

 

[Aldarc]

5e D&D is a crunchy game. It is not rules light. It is not even rules medium. It may be lighter than games like 4e D&D, 3e D&D, PF1, and PF2, but it turns out that most D&D games lean towards the crunchier side of games regardless of whether crunchier games exist. 5e D&D has a LOT of moving parts, subsystems, and exception-based design. Ignoring rules in 5e also doesn't make 5e D&D a light game. However, like others have suggested, I do think that a lot of people, particularly here, have forgotten and internalized a lot of D&D's complexity and have IMHO (mistakenly) come to view as the "norm" of crunch level when it comes to other TTRPGs out there.

EDIT: To be clear, IMHO: rules crunchy =! rules inaccessible.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is not even rules medium

Everyone on this thread so far has been trying to define what is a light RPG and what is a crunchy RPG, so what is the definition of a rules medium RPG? Is it an even mix of light and crunchy? Or is it one that leans into either one without fully committing itself?

 

[pemerton]

Everyone on this thread so far has been trying to define what is a light RPG and what is a crunchy RPG, so what is the definition of a rules medium RPG? Is it an even mix of light and crunchy? Or is it one that leans into either one without fully committing itself?

I would think that "rules medium" means intermediate between light and crunchy. So more complex - in resolution processes, say, or PC build, or both - than a light game (like eg Prince Valiant); but less so than a crunchy game (like eg modern D&D).

I suggested Classic Traveller as an example: it has a wargame-ish combat system, and a well-known somewhat intricate PC build minigame; but the play is quick, with fewer iterative steps or lookups than (say) D&D.

 

[Corinnguard]

I would think that "rules medium" means intermediate between light and crunchy. So more complex - in resolution processes, say, or PC build, or both - than a light game (like eg Prince Valiant); but less so than a crunchy game (like eg modern D&D).

I suggested Classic Traveller as an example: it has a wargame-ish combat system, and a well-known somewhat intricate PC build minigame; but the play is quick, with fewer iterative steps or lookups than (say) D&D.

It could also mean that some sections of an RPG are light while other sections in the same RPG are complex. Spells in 5e, for instance, could be thought of as complex because they have a number of moving parts that both a DM and a player need to keep track of. Duration, Range, how it is cast (as an action, a bonus action or a reaction), etc. 5e's Proficiency bonus progression otoh is light because it is consistent regardless of what D&D class you're playing as, and it's easy to remember. To me, this makes 5e D&D a rules medium game.

 

[Aldarc]

Everyone on this thread so far has been trying to define what is a light RPG and what is a crunchy RPG, so what is the definition of a rules medium RPG? Is it an even mix of light and crunchy? Or is it one that leans into either one without fully committing itself?

Maybe a bit like @payn if I understand his position correctly, I don't think that a rules-medium TTRPG has much independent value without first defining your end points of what constitutes a light TTRPG and a crunchy TTRPG. A rules-medium TTRPG is one that simply falls somewhere in the mean between those end points.

It could also mean that some sections of an RPG are light while other sections in the same RPG are complex. Spells in 5e, for instance, could be thought of as complex because they have a number of moving parts that both a DM and a player need to keep track of. Duration, Range, how it is cast (as an action, a bonus action or a reaction), etc. 5e's Proficiency bonus progression otoh is light because it is consistent regardless of what D&D class you're playing as, and it's easy to remember. To me, this makes 5e D&D a rules medium game.

I don't think that Proficiency bonus makes 5e a rules medium game. The purpose of Proficiency bonus spread is not lightness but, rather, bounded accuracy. Consider that 4e D&D also was "consistent regardless of what D&D class you're playing as, and it's easy to remember." You added half your level to all checks, but then you were either untrained (+0), trained (+2), or expert (+3). This seems easier to remember for me than my Proficiency at a given level. However, I doubt that anyone would take that then to therefore conclude that 4e D&D was a rules medium game or lighter than 5e D&D.

 

[Bluenose]

Light, imo, is a fundamentally simple system which doesn't have a great many "exceptions" where the rules are changed by one special ability or another. So most versions of D&D don't have particularly complex basic mechanics, but there's so many things which don't follow those rules and replace the "normal" resolution with their own exceptions to them.

Crunchy is a slightly separate thing. That refers to a rules-set that has a lot of stuff in it. So D&D has it's huge piles of spells, magic items, and now feats. Traveller has a massive selection of gear (from spaceships to cyberware). The difference is that the Traveller material works within the system and it's rare to need to look up how specifically they work, whereas there's a lot of D&D material which doesn't use normal D20 rolls against a target number.