Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Corinnguard]

It's also what kind of crunch that keeps appearing; I think only ACKS is going for world simulation while Lancer and Draw Steel are combat engines primarily. I've been looking at Seven-Part Pact and that's very much not trying to make a world sim but more attempting a very meta structure on being part of a magical ruling class.

Whereas Level Up's crunch deals with the three pillars of gameplay (combat, exploration, and social interaction) and a more extensive origin (heritage, culture, background and destiny) for anyone making a PC.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me, this seems to exemplify the (false) assertion that TTRPGs are storytelling tools first, as opposed to game engines first. "Evertly moment spent not roleplaying" is irrelevant if people acknowledge the fact that they are playing a game first and foremost.

To me this seems to exemplify the false assertion that all RPGs are designed with the same intent and all players want the same thing. Neither of which is true.

 

[ezekielcroe9]

It's also what kind of crunch that keeps appearing; I think only ACKS is going for world simulation while Lancer and Draw Steel are combat engines primarily. I've been looking at Seven-Part Pact and that's very much not trying to make a world sim but more attempting a very meta structure on being part of a magical ruling class.

I second this point. I venture to guess that veteran TTRP-Gamers will prefer crunch over rules-lite as rules tend to generate more interesting outcomes outside of player/GM fiat. But I think a lot of older crunch tended to be very granular and act as a separate sub-system that doesn't contribute to the core gameplay, and therefore the core fiction.

I jokingly call it the "Craft-ification", where crunch-loving GMs go the way of the crab, and increasingly trend all their games into a Crafting simulator. I observe a lot of GMs in my circle, who have some experience running games, tend to want to write up a sub-system to manage peripheral things; the most common being crafting mechanics. The hope being that this system will add crunch by creating more structure, and allow for more interactions between other subsystems (like scavenging/looting etc.) which therefore leads to more possible outcomes and pathways to engage with.

The thing is, while this system may be fun to design, it's not that fun to play in a game that's ultimately not about those rules. The rewards and the fiction of most games may not lend well to these new rules.

To me, I see the new trend of (i) games coming out calling themselves "rule-medium" and (ii) add back crunch, is more of the TTRPG space becoming more mature (outside of D&D) and being more thoughtful about how that crunch impacts the overall feel/usefulness for the game's fiction.

For example, although it is not necessarily to my taste, I really like Daggerheart's Hope and Fear mechanic. I see it as an elegant form crunch to their system. You can technically still run the system without Hope and Fear (replace them with some other default meta-currency), but it adds exactly the right kind of flavour to the games it wants to run.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas Level Up's crunch deals with the three pillars of gameplay (combat, exploration, and social interaction) and a more extensive origin (heritage, culture, background and destiny) for anyone making a PC.

That is A5e's focus on extra rules, but it also has a fair amount of world sim stuff (one of the things I love about it). ACKS just treats world sim as it's raison de arte.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I second this point. I venture to guess that veteran TTRP-Gamers will prefer crunch over rules-lite as rules tend to generate more interesting outcomes outside of player/GM fiat. But I think a lot of older crunch tended to be very granular and act as a separate sub-system that doesn't contribute to the core gameplay, and therefore the core fiction.

I jokingly call it the "Craft-ification", where crunch-loving GMs go the way of the crab, and increasingly trend all their games into a Crafting simulator. I observe a lot of GMs in my circle, who have some experience running games, tend to want to write up a sub-system to manage peripheral things; the most common being crafting mechanics. The hope being that this system will add crunch by creating more structure, and allow for more interactions between other subsystems (like scavenging/looting etc.) which therefore leads to more possible outcomes and pathways to engage with.

The thing is, while this system may be fun to design, it's not that fun to play in a game that's ultimately not about those rules. The rewards and the fiction of most games may not lend well to these new rules.

To me, I see the new trend of (i) games coming out calling themselves "rule-medium" and (ii) add back crunch, is more of the TTRPG space becoming more mature (outside of D&D) and being more thoughtful about how that crunch impacts the overall feel/usefulness for the game's fiction.

For example, although it is not necessarily to my taste, I really like Daggerheart's Hope and Fear mechanic. I see it as an elegant form crunch to their system. You can technically still run the system without Hope and Fear (replace them with some other default meta-currency), but it adds exactly the right kind of flavour to the games it wants to run.

Every table runs its own game though, so the craftification you're talking about helps those GMs make the game more in line with what they want for play. None of us have the right to suggest they shouldn't bother adding new subsystems they want because the game didn't come with them. That's tantamount to telling people 3pp shouldn't exist.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have never been convinced by the argument that rules complexities impacts "roleplaying" at all.

IMO Pretty easy to see how increased complexity impacts roleplaying at least to some degree.

 

[kermit4karate]

I second this point. I venture to guess that veteran TTRP-Gamers will prefer crunch over rules-lite...

Uh.... The people who started with the actual rules-lite games because that's how the games actually were back then will prefer the crunchier, newer games that are completely unlike the games they started with?

OSR stands for Old School Renaissance for a reason, because it reminds a certain group of people about their heyday of gaming. They didn't call it that because of the newbies.

Speaking for a number of vets I know, we vastly prefer rules-lite.

 

[TwoSix]

Uh.... The people who started with the actual rules-lite games because that's how the games actually were back then will prefer the crunchier, newer games that are completely unlike the games they started with?

OSR stands for Old School Renaissance for a reason, because it reminds a certain group of people about their heyday of gaming. They didn't call it that because of the newbies.

Speaking for a number of vets I know, we vastly prefer rules-lite.

Sure, but even within the OSR, there's higher crunch and lower crunch variations.

The closest thing to a "baseline" that exists in the OSR is the B/X engine, which I would personally as "rules-medium".

 

[Reynard]

IMO Pretty easy to see how increased complexity impacts roleplaying at least to some degree.

How so?

 

[Reynard]

Uh.... The people who started with the actual rules-lite games because that's how the games actually were back then will prefer the crunchier, newer games that are completely unlike the games they started with?

OSR stands for Old School Renaissance for a reason, because it reminds a certain group of people about their heyday of gaming. They didn't call it that because of the newbies.

Speaking for a number of vets I know, we vastly prefer rules-lite.

The OSR started with OSRIC, the retro-clone of AD&D, which is not "rules lite" in anyone's estimation, I don't think. The move toward lite games, including in the OSR, is a recent phenomenon. That's why I called it a pendulum.

Relatedly, OSRIC is getting a new edition.