Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dbm" data-source="post: 9764527" data-attributes="member: 8014">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.</blockquote>

Verification