Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Kichwas]

What do you think? Is crunch coming back? And is that desirable, in your opinion?

I see Daggerheart as a light system, compared to what I grew up with in the 80s.

Big Eyes Small Mouth was considered a rules light system when it came out in the mid 90s and is more complicated than Daggerheart.

But…

While Drawsteel is new, so is Legend in the Mist.

So to me it seems like there’s no specific direction things are going other than maybe the potential fir the hobby to have more than one pendulum going.

 

[Reynard]

As a VTT user, I find that automation doesn't help a lot with complexity, it only really helps with speed of play. It might help with elegant vs unwieldy games, but I think that's a different discussion.

I think this is a feature. People that want complexity don't necessarily want the game to grind to a stop in the wake of that complexity.

 

[Kichwas]

That is an excellent point. Thank you.

That said, TTRPG rulebooks are significantly, almost ridiculously, bigger than necessary from a rules presentation perspective.

Page count isn’t complexity nor do I think you said that.

But page count is big in some new releases.

However both Daggerheart and Legends in the Mist have rules that are more or less 2-5 pages followed by several hundred pages of tips, advice, adventures, campaigns, and examples.

This might make them look complex until you realize the rules are actually tiny.

Consider Chess and Go.

You can fit the rules if Go on an index card. You can fit the rules of Chess on a page. But there are centuries and libraries full of written examples, strat guides, and more on both.
Simple to learn and play, amazingly complex to master.
- That’s true if Legend in the Mist. Probably not as true of Daggerheart though.
But it’s also why LotM has 2 pages of rules and a few hundred pages of essays and ideas.

 

[Reynard]

One thing here is, I think, that we (collectively) aren't really using universally accepted definitions of "complexity" or "crunch" and don't necessarily agree on how those elements interact. Perhaps we should try and define our terms a little?

 

[Reynard]

Page count isn’t complexity nor do I think you said that.

But page count is big in some new releases.

However both Daggerheart and Legends in the Mist have rules that are more or less 2-5 pages followed by several hundred pages of tips, advice, adventures, campaigns, and examples.

This might make them look complex until you realize the rules are actually tiny.

Consider Chess and Go.

You can fit the rules if Go on an index card. You can fit the rules of Chess on a page. But there are centuries and libraries full of written examples, strat guides, and more on both.
Simple to learn and play, amazingly complex to master.
- That’s true if Legend in the Mist. Probably not as true of Daggerheart though.
But it’s also why LotM has 2 pages of rules and a few hundred pages of essays and ideas.

I really like Daggerheart, but it, like most RPGs, is way too wordy in explaining its rules.

 

[Corinnguard]

One thing here is, I think, that we (collectively) aren't really using universally accepted definitions of "complexity" or "crunch" and don't necessarily agree on how those elements interact. Perhaps we should try and define our terms a little?

The official Google definition for Crunch in an RPG:

In the context of role-playing games (RPGs), "crunch" refers to the mechanics and rules that govern gameplay. It contrasts with "fluff," which relates to the narrative and setting of the game. Crunch is often characterized by the complexity of rules and the number of calculations players must perform to resolve actions, which can vary from game to game. For example, games like Pathfinder 2e are considered "crunchy" due to their extensive rules covering nearly every scenario, while more narrative-focused games may have simpler rules

As for 5e and Level Up, their rules don't really cover every scenario that comes up in an official adventure or in a homebrewed adventure. So, compared to PF2 and earlier editions of D&D, they are less crunchy. Their rules are more open to being seen as Rules As Interpreted by both the players and the DM/Narrator.

Complexity and Crunch are Goldilocks issues after all.

 

[Agamon]

I think this is a feature. People that want complexity don't necessarily want the game to grind to a stop in the wake of that complexity.

True. I guess there are different types of complexity: level of math vs lists of abilities to choose from, frex. Automation helps for the former, does nothing for the latter.

 

[Kichwas]

My personal projection, though, is that we'll eventually see a schism between pen-and-paper TTRPGs and VTT RPGs. VTT RPGs already make it much easier to handle complexities like exact distance measuring and handling weight/encumberence. Eventually, someone will figure out how to capitalize on that and will make crunchy RPGs that are designed specifically for VTT play. It could help cut down on perceived

I think my phone quoted the wrong quote there. Might have to fix that tonight…

I’m not sold on the idea that VTTs will motivate a preference for or against crunchy games.

I think it is more about story vs game.

Do you want a narrative storytelling experience or a tactical gaming experience? Do you think you can get both in one game?

There are specific games I would pick for each style.
There are specific games in each style I would NOT pick even if a VTT handled everything. Like GURPS and Hero and Rolemaster - these games of the 80s would be super smooth if a VTT handled all the math. But they have stylistic choices that a VTT can’t solve. You either want that or you don’t.

I didn’t pick Pathfinder because I had Foundry and I didn’t switch to Mist because it doesn’t need Foundry.
I’ve GM’d Hero so GMing pathfinder in person would be no issue and Mist would work just as well over discord as in person or on a VTT.

They are different kinds of experiences and that’s why you pick one or the other or as I sometimes recommend: alternate between to avoid burnout.

 

[Reynard]

True. I guess there are different types of complexity: level of math vs lists of abilities to choose from, frex. Automation helps for the former, does nothing for the latter.

This is a good point. I do liked the definition of "crunchy" to be mainly about the number of rules subsystems involved, while "complexity" is more about the number of options and exceptions (especially in the player sphere, but also monsters and stuff).

With that being said, I guess I prefer high crunch and medium complexity. that is, I like having lots of tools at my disposal, from combat maneuvers to exploration systems to "social combat", but I do have a fuzzy limit on how many active abilities I have in hand for a character or monster.

 

[Kichwas]

I really like Daggerheart, but it, like most RPGs, is way too wordy in explaining its rules.

Maybe.

But some of that advice solved issues for me that I had been having since the 1980s and just hadn’t thought of dealing with that way.

A lot of folks really love the GM advice in Daggerheart. Many point out that its not new or original. But it was compiled in one place and then very well presented.

Like my community college English teacher who finally got me to relove literature by the choices she made in the reading list and being down to earth with it. She wasn’t teaching anything different from the high school teacher that got me to hate the subject. But she had the right attitude and presentation.

I wouldn’t have gone on to get multiple degrees at a UC if not for that reframing.