Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[kermit4karate]

• Almost all Powered by the Apocalypse games
• Almost all Forged in the Dark games
• The 5th Edition World of Darkness games
• Almost all 2d20 games from Modiphius (Conan and Infiniti being the exception)
• Cortex games like Tales of Xadia, Marvel Heroic Roleplay and Smallville
• The Cinematic Unisystem used for Buffy and Angel RPGs
• Into The Odd and Black Hack are profoundly less complex.

After getting rid of my Pathfinder Second Edition books I don't think anything on my shelf is more complex than AD&D, certainly not to run. Maybe Draw Steel, although I find it much easier to run than AD&D or 5e.

AD&D is no Champions or Pathfinder, sure. But in the grand scheme of RPG design I consider it pretty much smack dab in the middle complexity wise

You have way more experience with a broader range of games than I do. I'm only familiar with a couple of the systems you listed. I just don't think of AD&D as crunchy based on the ubiquitous nature of the whole D&D d20 family at this point. I can't remember the last time I met someone who's played any RPGs before who didn't have at least some experience with a flavor of D&D (including variants and OSRs).

 

[LordEntrails]

The post I was replying to stated:

I merely pointed out data that showed this to be not true.

ok, (I quoted that post as well) but the data is skewed isn't it? Saying that data from BGG shows that current players like complexity is misleading. Because it's really only saying that current fanatic/serious board players like complexity. And players from Ye Old Days were also pretty much only the fanatic/serious players, because, to my point, is that on the old days the vast majority of players were fanatics. Because we had to be. Now that is no longer true. I think most gamers are casual.

 

[dbm]

Saying that data from BGG shows that current players like complexity is misleading.

That’s not what I said.

I refuted the point that “all gamers like simple games” by showing some players like complex games.

 

[bloodtide]

No, it's not generation, imo. It's that instead of RPGs being played by 0.00001% of the population, they are now played by 1% of the population (numbers made up). They have become more accessible and acceptable, and a lot of those people are different than the die-hard grognards who had to be committed in order to push through all the resistance to playing.

Some generations like complexity and detail. Some just like to toss dice.

 

[kermit4karate]

Some generations like complexity and detail. Some just like to toss dice.

Oh, dear.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Compared to what? What are some RPGs that you think are less crunchy than 1e was?

I'm trying to think of any RPGs except PF2e that are new in the last 15 years that are more crunchy than 1e. Maybe Lancer. (This doesn't count relatively minor updates to games like Shadowrun that are significantly older)

D&D 5e for example is less crunchy than an out of the box 1e because it has a consistent set of mechanics and doesn't have rules scattered throughout the DMG with little rhyme or reason. A curated 1e run by a veteran DM might be simpler but one of those doesn't come in the rulebook and both learning to curate and actually curating are part of the complexity. And even curated you've a mishmash of systems that keeps you more complicated than even Daggerheart or anything Powered by the Apocalypse. Never mind anything Fate-ish or Forged in the Dark

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually agree. I was mostly trying to be diplomatic and avoid yet another battle.

I see no reason for battle here. Rules-light games being more popular, for very understandable reasons, has nothing to do with whether or not they're more favored by an individual or group. I freely admit my preferences are in the minority, but so what? The games I enjoy still exist and are still being made. I just have to sift through more stuff I probably won't enjoy to find them.

 

[kermit4karate]

I'm trying to think of any RPGs except PF2e that are new in the last 15 years that are more crunchy than 1e. Maybe Lancer. (This doesn't count relatively minor updates to games like Shadowrun that are significantly older)

D&D 5e for example is less crunchy than an out of the box 1e because it has a consistent set of mechanics and doesn't have rules scattered throughout the DMG with little rhyme or reason. A curated 1e run by a veteran DM might be simpler but one of those doesn't come in the rulebook and both learning to curate and actually curating are part of the complexity. And even curated you've a mishmash of systems that keeps you more complicated than even Daggerheart or anything Powered by the Apocalypse. Never mind anything Fate-ish or Forged in the Dark

I don't think it's fair to treat AD&D like it's in a vacuum though. I'm not the only person familiar with D&D. Most RPGers on Earth are, and when I've read through the rules for DH, I'm lost, but I could still play AD&D 35 years later because it's still, for the most part, D&D (adjustments made for THAC0).

If all things were equal, I could see your point, but AD&D is pretty foundational to this day. It's hard to call it crunchy because of the ubiquitous nature of D&D, IMO.

 

[Parmandur]

AD&D was chock full of subsystems. My guess would be that you did not use all of those after starting with 3E, so have a "cleaned up" version of AD&D in your mind.

Sure, I didn't day it was simple, I said it was ad complex as 5E: 7 out of 10, tops.

3E was way more involved, as was a lot of contemporary stuff lije Rubequest or Rolemaster.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You have way more experience with a broader range of games than I do. I'm only familiar with a couple of the systems you listed. I just don't think of AD&D as crunchy based on the ubiquitous nature of the whole D&D d20 family at this point. I can't remember the last time I met someone who's played any RPGs before who didn't have at least some experience with a flavor of D&D (including variants and OSRs).

The thing here is that 1e is probably less like a d20 game than Daggerheart - and in Daggerheart the players almost never touch d20s. The d20 family is WotC onwards - and many (although not all) of the deviations of 1e from the d20 framework are simply annoying and add almost nothing

An obvious example here is descending AC. It's fiddly, it's faffy, and as far as adding crunch goes it's like chewing tinfoil. Then there are the roll under stats, and the percentile skills(and how does initiative work)?

d20 started off as a reworking of TSR era D&Db because that engine was making horrible crunching noises whenever anyone tried to drive it. Then 3e decided with the more powerful engine to test to see how much it could carry ...

The only reason you don't think of 1e as crunchy is that you've had decades to get used to its distinctive quirks and foibles.