Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Parmandur]

How do you pinpoint the difference between a VTT and a computer game?

A VTT is more of a helpful tool that requires human agency, a computer game juat requires decision inputs.

If a VTT game is so complex it just becomes decision inputs, that's a computer game


And Idragher play Fire Emblem than wrestle with Foundry.

 

[mamba]

Do you think most OSR games are lighter than D&D 3, 3.5 or 4 were?

being less crunchy than those does not make you rules-lite

5e is not rules lite, neither are 1e or 2e

 

[kermit4karate]

being less crunchy than those does not make you rules-lite

5e is not rules lite, neither are 1e or 2e

How about Shadowdark? Because I see it referred to as rules-lite, and I kinda think it isn't too crunchy. It's also basically a hybrid of a few different D&D versions with a handful of additional rules.

 

[Deset Gled]

A VTT is more of a helpful tool that requires human agency, a computer game juat requires decision inputs.

If a VTT game is so complex it just becomes decision inputs, that's a computer game

I get what you're intending, but I feel like it we're already at an ambiguous point and getting grayer.

To build a character, I could use all of my human agency and input the character sheet from scratch. OTOH, if I have a system where I can buy D&D books (Beyond, Roll20, etc), I can literally build an entire character from just decision inputs. Pick class. Pick feats, etc.

If I DM, I can make my own maps and monsters. But I can also buy a prefab adventure, and DM a plot almost entirely from decision inputs. Read text. Load map. Move monster, etc. As VTTs mature, I believe this will become more common.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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).

That is because you played AD&D back in the day. Daggerheart is more like modern D&D than 1e is.

Mechanically I'm trying to think of the actual similarities between 1e and 5e. I can't get much beyond "It has six stats called the same things as they are in 5e, has some spells with the same name, has some classes with the same name, has levels, and you have hit points - and when they reach 0 you go down. And you sometimes use a d20"

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.

AD&D is pretty much of historic interest. Its peak was over 40 years ago and it hasn't been the top game among younger players in over 30 (WoD having surpassed it in the 90s) Calling it a d20 game is pretty close to the Fellow Kids meme.

And when things like AC, Saving throws, hit dice, and even the stats use the same name but do significantly different things in addition to its crunch you're walking through a field of rakes. (Compare with Daggerheart where in combat Evasion works exactly like AC but is called something different because Daggerheart uses armour as damage reduction; the different name points out the difference but in play it's familiar).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Awkward prose, poor organization, and non-intuitive math formulas are not necessarily more crunchy: 5E is more refined in presentation and presents the mathematical process more elegantly, but isn't really less complex than AD&D. "Small number good" is counterintuitive to a lot of people, but is not really complex per se.

The problem isn't that AD&D isn't "small number good". It's that it's "sometimes a small number is good and other times a large number is good." Sometimes you're on a roll high, other times you're on a roll under. Sometimes it's a d20, sometimes a d100. The system shock and resurrection survival saving throws being found in an entirely different book to the save Vs death or poison is poor organisation. But that they use entirely different mechanics would gratuitously add to complexity no matter where they were

 

[Reynard]

Eh, I'd say it is a wash. 7 out of 10 in both cases.

There are good reasons for the different traits of sub-systems, and they honestly aren't that hard. 3E is way more complex than AD,D, and that had a universal resolution mechanic.

More games should have bespoke subsystems that operate on different mathematical principles, because different things are different.

You seem to be ignoring some complexity and emphasizing other sorts, to the point that I don't actually think we are using the same definition of complexity.

 

[soviet]

A consistent core mechanic across the game's systems is itself inherently less complex than otherwise. Again, 5E has complexity is character build but is very simple in its other systems. AD&D was essentially the opposite.

What's the DC of casting a spell?

 

[Agamon]

How do you determine the difference between a VTT and a computer game? I don't know where the line is.

Was this tongue-in-cheek? VTTs aren't run with algorithms and preset PC/NPC conversations.

 

[Agamon]

1e run strictly by-the-book is pretty crunchy. 1e run the way most people run/ran it could be considered rules lite lol