Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[Umbran]

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

It think you seem to be defining "the industry" as everything other than D&D, which is still actually most of the market, and is/has been what most would call a "medium" crunch game for a decade and more.

In addition to what Morrus points out, I think tabletop RPGs don't go so much for heavy crunch any more for some good reasons:

For one thing, other forms of game do heavy-crunch better than ttrpgs have ever done it.

In addition, really solid engagement with heavy-crunch rules tends to take up brainspace, to the point of pushing out the other things that ttrpgs are better at. If we are spending 20 minutes working out the crunch of a round of action declaration, the other elements of role-playing have been set aside for long enough that we lose context and attention for them. Heavy-crunch RPGs, then, become an exercise at context-switching, which humans are much, much less good at than we often claim to be.

These combined leads to the question - why, exactly, are we using an ttrpg for our heavy-crunch goodness? Maybe we should go to other types of games for that joy.

There are many very complex boardgames, for example, that still manage to contain their rules in dozens rather than hundreds of pages. Of course TTRPGs aren't board games

Specifically, board games have vastly smaller decisions spaces for their players. Yes, the rules for Monopoly will fit inside the box top, but the number of things the player can choose to do is small.

 

[kermit4karate]

With a couple of notable exceptions, such as Pathfinder 2E, it seems like the TTRPG industry has been trending toward simplicity for years now. But with the recent releases of Daggerheart and Draw Steel -- medium and heavy crunch system respectively -- maybe the pendulum is swing back toward at least some degree of system complexity and crunch.

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

Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

That's easy. Yes!

Do I look forward to it happening? Hell, no.

 

[kermit4karate]

I agree and am a big fan of the idea that we can leverage VTTs to make some games more detailed and granular without slowing down play.

VTTs are a big variable, but at what point does the veil/mask they provide between the game and the rules turn a TTRPG into a video game?

Basically for me, there are some crunchier systems coming out alongside the lighter ones. I see that. Personally, though, I'm not excited about a return to crunch. In my experience, crunchier rules slow the game (especially at the table), widen the gap between casual players and vets, and reduce flexibility at the table.

I'd rather see systems stay lean and fast so the focus stays on story and creativity. I have a sneaking suspicion (just an opinion, obviously) that the market for heavy crunch is a niche swing and not a real shift. But time will tell, like it always does.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

The way I see it, we’re not looking at a pendulum swing so much as a branching.

The industry didn’t collectively move toward simplicity; instead, the market broadened. For about a decade, we saw an explosion of light-to-medium games because they were easier to design, publish, and playtest in indie spaces. These spread fast through digital platforms and actual plays, so the perception grew that “simpler is the trend.” Meanwhile, crunchier games like Pathfinder 2E, Shadowrun, GURPS, and the heavier end of OSR design never left—they just weren’t in the cultural spotlight.

What’s happening now with Daggerheart (medium) and Draw Steel (heavy) is less about crunch returning and more about audiences fragmenting into stable niches. Complexity appeals to players who want longer campaigns, tactical options, and system mastery, while lighter games thrive with groups prioritizing quick play, narrative freedom, and low prep.

Is that desirable? I’d say yes, but only in the sense that diversity is desirable. A new wave of crunchy games doesn’t threaten rules-light design—it complements it. The danger only comes when publishers misjudge their audience and try to force a single model as “the future.”

 

[Umbran]

I agree and am a big fan of the idea that we can leverage VTTs to make some games more detailed and granular without slowing down play.

As someone who occasionally likes rules heavy games (just not for ttrpg play), when I engage with them, it is because I want to do the thought and analysis around my choices. And, I'm sorry, but I am slower than a computer. For me, any rules that are getting resolved faster than I can do it is bypassing my purpose in playing a rules-heavy game.

One can have fast-resolving rules that the player is not actually expected to analyze directly, but that seems to me more about simulation than rules-engaging play.

 

[Morrus]

Personally, though, I'm not excited about a return to crunch.

The beauty is you don’t have to. You will always be allowed to play whichever game you want.

 

[Reynard]

As someone who occasionally likes rules heavy games (just not for ttrpg play), when I engage with them, it is because I want to do the thought and analysis around my choices. And, I'm sorry, but I am slower than a computer. For me, any rules that are getting resolved faster than I can do it is bypassing my purpose in playing a rules-heavy game.

One can have fast-resolving rules that the player is not actually expected to analyze directly, but that seems to me more about simulation than rules-engaging play.

Folks seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying here, which suggests I have not explained it well.

By allowing the VTT to do the math in play, you can have a lot of modifiers and knock on effects that are consequential. You aren't ignoring those things. You are ostensibly still examining your choices in downtime/between sessions. It is just that the resolution of that particular action (an attack, say) doesn't take any longer than a less complex game would because the hard work of choosing has already been done by the player and the tedious work of rolling six nested tables is done instantly by the VTT.

Does that make sense?

 

[Parmandur]

Folks seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying here, which suggests I have not explained it well.

By allowing the VTT to do the math in play, you can have a lot of modifiers and knock on effects that are consequential. You aren't ignoring those things. You are ostensibly still examining your choices in downtime/between sessions. It is just that the resolution of that particular action (an attack, say) doesn't take any longer than a less complex game would because the hard work of choosing has already been done by the player and the tedious work of rolling six nested tables is done instantly by the VTT.

Does that make sense?

I get what you are saying, and while VTTd are a neat tool...I think a TTRPG that designed with VTT in mind rather than as an after thought would run into problems.

 

[Umbran]

Folks seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying here, which suggests I have not explained it well.

By allowing the VTT to do the math in play, you can have a lot of modifiers and knock on effects that are consequential. You aren't ignoring those things. You are ostensibly still examining your choices in downtime/between sessions. It is just that the resolution of that particular action (an attack, say) doesn't take any longer than a less complex game would because the hard work of choosing has already been done by the player and the tedious work of rolling six nested tables is done instantly by the VTT.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but it describes a game that does not offer what I, at least, want in crunch-heavy play. Doing my analysis and decisions on y own, outside a session of play, where there is no immediately unfolding situation, isn't what I'm looking for.

 

[dbm]

I think the type of crunch is important. Rules engines like D&D use an exception based design, where every special ability is typically designed individually (or at least, presented that way). Games like GURPS or HERO use a more systematic design which front loads the complexity in learning the system but isn’t necessarily any slower in play from a mechanics perspective. It can actually be quicker since many abilities will follow the same rules pattern so people can generate results faster once they have internalised the system. So a crunchy system is not necessarily any slower.

Further, what is the game being used to run? D&D is typically being used to run a whole series of combat encounters since its resource models are based on attrition and that is usually implemented as a mix of more or less challenging combats. Other games are not designed around this paradigm and so don’t need a long parade of combat scenes to work as intended. When you look at games like that, other systems which may be mechanically heavier than D&D might actually be quicker to ‘get to the good stuff’ because you don’t have to wade through the filler encounters.

On top of that… how are combat scenes resolved? Many people talk about D&D fights lasting maybe six turns on average. In my group, they seem to be closer to 8-10 combat rounds. Reading Draw Steel, they say the system is designed so that a typical combat should take three rounds. When you factor that in, DS turns could take twice as long to execute as D&D turns for no practical increase in the time required to run a combat.

In summary, as long as games use their complexity well I am happy to play a complex system.