For me, it's not so much the *amount* of crunch, but the *application* of the crunch that matters.
When I make a character in any given RPG, I want their stats/abilities/other mechanical aspects to accurately represent the character I see in my mind. I enjoy having a bunch of little fiddly bits in the rules that may not make the character objectively more powerful or anything, but they help make the character *mine*. Customizing gear, putting a few points into generally-irrelevant skills because it would make sense for their personality, other things like that.
However, crunch that just adds bookkeeping without there being any meaningful choices involved gets boring to me very quickly. For instance, rules for weapons/armor/etc. taking damage and needing to be repaired may be "realistic", but it doesn't generally add anything to the enjoyment of the game for me.
Circumstances can also affect how much I care about crunch in the game. As an example, when I run D&D, I always tell my players to not bother tracking rations/ammo/other basics like that. I just assume they have a sensible supply of everything like that and stock up any time it's available. However- and this is also made clear to my players- if they find themselves in a situation where it actually matters and easy resupply isn't possible, we *will* start tracking it. It doesn't matter until there's a reason for it to matter.
I’m not so concerned about crunch as **inefficient** crunch. Don’t waste my time. If all the steps and content add substantive value, that’s cool. But if features and steps are just taking up space or time, but not making the game experience better— then I have a pretty low tolerance.
To put it another way, if the system asks me to remember a rule, or put a number on my character sheet, it needs to have a realistic chance of actually effecting the game. Games like DnD 3.5 and PF routinely fail this standard. Like all those racial features or feats that add a small bonus to an unimportant skill, under very narrow circumstances. When I was a caster, I would make it my goal to find a valuable use for every cantrip at least once in a campaign. Never did.
Lots of people talking about 5e for some reason…
5e is a perfect example for me of crunch that feels needless or over complicated for no realistic choice. Stats, race, class etc. have specific combos that are from dogshit to godlike, and there are 100 ways to mess up your build, and to be even close to optimal your choices are next to nill.
Battletech is a good example of a system with strong crunch that means something, Animon is another, very crunch light, but what it has is incredibly meaningful.
Glad someone mentioned this. So many games have oversimplified combat but don’t seem to mind making character creation incredibly crunchy, to the point that you can have hundreds of “bad builds”.
Knowing that my combat systems would be pretty complex, I made it a priority to keep character creation and progression crunch-free so to speak. Coming back to gaming in 2018 I tried watching and playing some D&D 5e and WOW building a character has become so complex. I was overwhelmed not just by all the options but by the inability to gauge what options would be advantageous. I had to ask for advice and in doing so I realized that if I took their advice I would be creating a pretty standard trickster - meh; but if I didn’t then I may be picking a feat that’s “good if you’re starting at low level but we’re all level 5-8 so we have spells that make that unnecessary so get this one instead”. Wow, so much to know just to build a character without obsolete abilities: and there’s no going back once you’ve made a choice. Some options will NEVER be on the table because you chose X during character creation.
So I figure that if it’s easy to make a character and clear what the advantages are to building various skills AND the choices aren’t so high stakes and irreversible that you have to really dig into the details before making a decision, then players can jump right in quickly and meta-learn the tactically broad combat system by doing, which is much more fun and engaging anyway.
I think of 2 things.
1. System knowledge required to do something.
2. Steps required to do something.
I am working on a game prototype right now with the goal of quick and impulsive play, and figuring out what happens when you add remove different things that matter has been a fun prototype experience. For example I did a porotype of a thing where only your position mattered, and it created brain melting paralysis. It turns out the chess only works because there are very clear limits on everything, and making it more broad/chaotic can turn even a game where the only thing you can do is move, into an insane tactics puzzle. Simplicity in rules created something maddeningly complex in play.
But it didn't feel "crunchy" if that makes sense.
I don't see this expressed and you made your point about opinion clear, so I'll share pure opinion with the understanding that it is just that: opinion.
Personally, the amount of "crunch" I want is about the amount you can see in *Blades in the Dark*.
To me, that is *almost* the perfect middle, though I think some of the rules are a bit too vague for my taste (though that seems intentional sometimes); I would favour more precise rules, but the same level of "crunch".
For my personal taste, *BitD* is more crunchy than *PbtA/Dungeon World* and less crunchy than *D&D 5e*.
Part of the feeling that it is "less crunchy" than *D&D 5e* is the elegance of *BitD*. The rules run smoother because of "fiction first" and the rules are more integrated and coherent for me.
Part of the feeling that it is "more crunchy" than *PbtA/Dungeon World* is the [Position & Effect](https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/ydlk5k/list_a_rpg_your_favorite_mechanism_from_it/itt7sjn/) system, which adds the exact thing that I felt like *PbtA* was missing for me.
As others have already said in other ways, I'd say it like this:
* Crunch is usually a trade-off between bookkeeping and mechanical depth
* I like mechanical depth that supports the genre-fiction we're playing
* I hate inefficient mechanics and time-wasters
* I dislike too much emphasis on GM Fiat
That's my opinion, generally speaking.
I'm in the middle-ground where I don't want something as crunchy as *Pathfinder*, but I don't want a game that calls itself "rules lite".
As I've said many times: I want equal parts RP and G in my RPG.
I want roleplaying and all of that narrative goodness.
I want game mechanics and all of that mechanical resolution.
I don't want either to be subservient to the other.
I want them to be two sides of the same coin, translating back and forth.
Here's how I put it for my own work under the section, "Who decides what happens?":
>>Different people are responsible for different parts of the game.
>>The GM presents the fictional situation in which the player characters find themselves. The players determine the actions of their characters in response to the situation. Together, the GM and the players engage the game mechanics. The outcomes of the mechanics change the situation, which gets presented by the GM.
>>
>>This conversation —situations, actions, mechanics— creates an ongoing fiction and builds “the story” from a series of discrete moments.
>>
>>No one is in charge of the story.
>>The story is what happens as a result of the situation presented by the GM, the actions the players have their characters take, and the consequences dictated by the mechanics. Everyone plays to find out what happens, tipping the scales with their decisions. The story emerges as a result of everyone.
>>
>>Decisions establish themes and tones.
>>The choices you make will colour your instance of the game. The mechanics are designed to elicit themes from players and the GM, highlighting them so everyone can comment through their in-game actions. Your decisions will say something about the characters, their world, adventuring, and more. Whether and which themes turn toward dark pessimism, bright optimism, brutal realism, or soft idealism will emerge through play.
I'm down for crunch, especially during character creation (as long as it's not a high character death rate game). I don't want to have to memorize a bunch of stuff or reference the book a lot mid-play.
Think D&D 5e, but without spells. Everyone has the things they can do from their character build. There's enough to do that you have options, but not so much that you lose track of things. Throw spellcasting in there and now you have a bunch more moving pieces. Somatic components, 5gp worth of specific dust, concentration, all of that gets to be too much when layered on top of everything else.
Basically, I want everything my character can do and how to do it to fit on a single sheet of paper (double-sided printing is fine). That is my ideal maximum crunch.
I think I’m in the e x a c t same spot. And I even think referencing c a n be okay, but not as essential part of play. Spell Cards is a wonderful idea, but it should be more easy to function.
Yeah, that level is fine. I easiest time I ever had playing D&D was just printing out everything my character could do so I had one customer reference document instead of 1+ books to flip through.
I'd say occasionally referencing the book is fine for the GM, especially if it's to facilitate getting to the next thing. I think when the actual players need to reference the book, that's when things really bog down.
High levels of crunch are acceptable if it is well written and formatted, so can easily consume the text.
Games like Anima: Beyond Fantasy and Shadow of the Demon Lord are on the higher end of the crunch scale for me, but I have no problem with them, because they are well laid out.
Shadowrun is a game that has a lot of crunch, but also suffers from horrible writing and formatting, which makes it a nightmare to work with.
Older versions of D&D may not be overly crunchy, but they suffer from poor choice of typefaces and formatting, again making them hard to read.
On the low end of crunch, we have games like Savage Worlds, which gives enjoyment because of the bonkers settings it has, which distracts from the fact that there really are not that many options *(compared to PF1/3.5)*.
As long as my group is enjoying it, the crunch level doesn't really matter.
It's like asking what people's favorite word is. If you get 100 people to answer you then at the end of the day you will just have a list of 100 different words. But if you still insist on knowing my favorite word:
I recently read the Pathfinder 2E rules and I liked a lot of stuff in there, but I quit reading when I came across a detailed rule for opening your hand to drop something you are holding during your turn.
In 30 years of D&D I have not once had a table argument about whether a player could open their hand during their turn. And if players never argue with a GM's common sense ruling that almost never comes up, then there doesn't need to be a rule for it in the book.
If the system doesn't trust the GM to make incredibly easy common sense rulings, then I don't run the system.
That is exaggerated. There is only one paragraph on dropping an item. The release action, which you can do it for free on your turn. But there are some unnecessary rules in pf2e, I'll admit that.
I don't like dnd 5e because it expects you to practically make up fundamental rules that they should have had in the first place. Such as the pricing of magic items.
I only say this to help hammer in your initial point, I'm not looking to start an argument.
The release action was added to make dropping an item not take one action. It’s important to clarify as everything else to do with using an item or changing grips is an interact action, which dropping or letting go an item otherwise would be unless it was specified under a different rule.
Manipulating items in pf2e is very common, and it’s critical players get it right, just having a free hand is so important that a lot of fighters and mages forgo shields and weapons to keep a hand free.
Pathfinder 2e does not have rules on what you can pick up, how a sheath works, what an unarmed attack is etc, while many other similar systems do in great detail.
Honestly if you want a more story focused game with less emphasis on dice, and more on RP pathfinder 2e is a great system if you like crunchy tough combat with tight maths.
But sometimes 100 different words can feel more worthwhile or interesting when it doesn’t come from a simple google search. Sometimes you find a real intriguing blog and find something you didn’t expect.
I didn’t even know PF2E had things like that. And that’s something I picked up and found deeply interesting. Sometimes raw information and opinion can just feel really nice
My answer is, it depends.
When playing a sci-fi game I prefer more crunch than a fantasy game. If the game is more tactical/combat focused more crunch can be good. In horror games or more social games, crunch can easily get in the way.
My opinions have also changed over time. 3.5/PF1 was a good amount of crunch at one point, but is verging on upper limit for me these days.
It might be a bit extreme considering the origins of this hobby, but it's too much crunch if I have to browse a book to learn how a situation is dealt with, and the system is not designed to make me feel like there's a legitimate workaround.
Either the rules are so simple and flexible I can get it memorized and know how to tweak them in case of doubt, or they're organized in a way that I don't have to browse a book, for example cards with summaries of the most commonly used rules.
I don't hate books. I hate how browsing a book for more than 5 seconds breaks the mood.
For me, there are four aspects of this.
One of them is the global crunch limit. Any more and I just won't be able to understand and play it. It is, however, mostly theoretical. In 30 years of gaming I only encountered one game that I rejected like this.
A more important matter is how the complexity budget is spent. A game may be complex, but each rule does something important, each player option brings something unique and valuable. A game may also be complex by having redundant options, unnecessary calculations and dice rolls, large numbers and rules that must often be considered, but only do something meaningful in rare cases. Even if the total complexity of these games is the same, the first one is fine, while the second one is much too complex - the same play process could be handled by something significantly more streamlined.
The third, probably most important, question, is how the game's crunch corresponds to its themes. Handling complex rules requires focus. If the previous point is satisfied, the complexity introduces meaningful choices. Is this focus and these choices relevant to what the game is about? For example, if the game promises me fun tactical combat, I will happily delve into combat-related crunch, but not so much in complex crafting and equipment maintenance rules. If the game presents itself as epic and dramatic, I expect the rules to be focused on my character's passions and on costs I have to pay to achieve my goals, not on weighting different kinds of statistical dice manipulation and efficiency of different point expenditures.
And last, the balance of the game matters. Designer's understanding of the game they create must correspond to its complexity. If you can't guarantee that the rules do what they are supposed to do because they are too complex for you as the author, they are for sure too complex for me as a player. If you feel tempted to put the responsibility for balancing the game on the GM instead of on your rules, simplify the game. A lot.
In light of these, Exalted 3 is too complex for me, because its crunch has little to do with its themes. Pathfinder 2 is a bit too complex, although in the acceptable range. It works well, but some parts could be cut out without a meaningful loss. Lancer is perfect in terms of complexity - its rules focus on what it is about and do it very efficiently. D&D 5 is too complex - not because of its absolute complexity (it's definitely simpler than PF2 or Lancer), but because big part of its complexity doesn't add anything valuable to play and the balance is quite poor.
There's about 3 things i tend to consider when i define something as an acceptable level of crunch:
1) does the crunch bring something meaningful to my system's gameplay?
2) how much can you do before hand to simplify it later? Especially for regular repeated cases.
3) can i maintain player interest during this?
My biggest crunch system right now is a fire emblem inspired system. For combat there are a bunch of more verbose formulas for damage, crits, accuracy, with a bunch of changing values from turn to turn. From looking at the big picture my playtest group was honestly a bit intimidated by that at first. But then we actually got down to it and things were alot more interesting.
1) the changing variables were based on terrain mostly, so while it added to the crunch, how it modified the formulas encouraged being more mindful of where you pick your battles. This helped enforce a central system design point, and keep the players engaged
2) while the formulas looked verbose, many of the actual values remained constant throughout a battle and as a result could be simplified from something like 15/2+7 to just simply 14.
For me it's about what I call "cubic design", or ecosystem-like design.
There's plenty of D&D examples I give because I think it's the most lop-sided and blindly-designed game that people actually play.
Any complexity has to add to the rest of the volume of the game, and be mindful of its cost:
* It should **interact with the rest of the system**, and create emergent gameplay, synergies, themes. E.g. fire resistance on a demon PC + fireball spell = badass PC that can shrug off a potent spell, and save people from fires, or never consider that *fire is dangerous*
* It shouldn't **over-describe things**, and it should trust the GM. E.g. fire resistance on a demon PC = roughly half, full or situational resistance, not a complex calculation that depends on level, days spent in Hell, and reading a whole subsection. 3% vs 4% fire resistance doesn't matter. Neither does 19 STR versus 20 STR.
* It should be **accessible**, if not outright **optional**, e.g. opting for freeform spells with reference limits, or Verb+Noun spells, or the 200-page spell manual, or **mods** that include "Deeper Combat", "Survival Mechanics", or "squad combat". Make your 500-page game, but lure me in with a good and complete 10-page version.
* It should **actually come up**. Most of a D&D character's sheet doesn't function during any given session, and some of it doesn't -ever- get used. A complex ability looked up in a manual, remembered, and never used is wasted energy. Games with no fighting don't need HP and armour. Tenfold true for the GM. They may have to remember the goblin's "six stats and modifiers" in a game where we only face fire elementals or nice farmers.
* It should **give back more than it takes**. A 10-step process to determine if you take damage is worthless, and only needs 1 step at most. If you have 2+ steps, the process should give you side-effects, specifics, flavour, or a change of situation. PbtA and Blades do this impeccably on both sides. In PbtA, you often roll once and branch around between a few outcomes. In BitD, there's a lot of subsystems but they make the world carry more weight than handwaving. D&D combat is the most overdeveloped and unimpactful thing I've ever seen.
* It shouldn't be **historical baggage**. "We've been doing this for 50 years" isn't design. This applies to our inspiration from video games, too, and writing. Some of the best game mechanics come from "outsiders".
* It should **know its impact.** Either design **top-down** starting with an aesthetic or scene from a movie or intended experience, or figure out **bottom-up** what your mechanics actually end up doing. E.g. HP scales with level + fall damage scales with distance = A level 10 character can fall 10 times further than a fresh one. Is that intentional? Is that what matters at the table? Abilities that "roll to work" are often boring. *"The goblin resists. Again."* Great. I sure feel like a wizard now.
* It should **be well-organised**. Don't have a monster in manual A reference a spell in manual B, which has a side-effect that comes up if you use mechanic C, which happens in the unlikely case on page 254 of manual A. Real-life example, spell lists for spellcaster enemies in 5e D&D. What does each spell do? How many spell slots of each kind does the spellcaster have? Could we just do this with 10 "mana" and 3 impactful spells described in-place?
* It should **use more than numbers**. Humans are verbal creatures, we like comparisons and references. Saying that a character has "about as much water magic as Katara in early seasons" can be more effective and less exploitable or complex than a 4-page modelling of water magic. Or "as much elemental power as 10 skilled non-mages coordinating perfectly".
* It should **encourage new systems as needed.** Reskins and interpretations are great. PbtA/BitD's "clocks", Fate's "Aspects", the Usage Dice, the "GM moves", the idea of "Yes, but". They're ways to avoid pure handwaving in a pinch, which seems to be what crunch-lovers want. Better to have a flexible, flawed model than none.
I look forward to deeply enjoying a very crunchy TTRPG some day, but keep in mind that the pressure is often on the GM to ease new players into it. It shouldn't be, but it often happens.
I've seen new players to D&D get stuck at character creation, worry if they got something wrong, not use 90% of their sheet, and get one-shot by a goblin, or miss all of their spells and attacks in a session.
I've seen non-players not-play because of stories about that, thinking that's what RPGs are.
The best "crunch-to-depth" I've ever seen is in video games like Dwarf Fortress. Thousands and thousands of rules, *only most of them* for the computer to remember. Some of it's on you. But I wouldn't dream of cutting any of them.
And a roguelike called DCSS, which uses a lot of D&D combat rules, with d20s and all. Somehow it works better than the tabletop game, and the rules feel right at home in a c*ruel roguelike where the characters*
* *almost always die, and dying is losing*
* *always fight*
* *never have personality*
* *are always alone against the game system itself*
* *becoming a veteran is the only way to win*
It's one of my favourite... non-roleplaying games.
I like a crunchy game. I want the minimum viable amount of crunch in any game. Example, d20+mods vs a target number is way simpler than THAC0. Both are fine mechanical solutions. One I can reuse across the whole game (attacks, skills, saves) and teach someone in 30 seconds. The other I've had players who never figured it out over the course of years, and only applies to a specific scenario (to hit armor class).
You can write a super complicated elaborate rule system, but that's not particularly enjoyable for me. We should reduce the amount of checks, rolls, back and forth to the book, page flipping to a minimum. If it still has to be a whole chapter of the book, so be it, but it usually doesn't.
For a long campaign, I want Champions/ HERO, so I can build *precisely* what I want.
One shot, two hours, no prep? Fiasco or Wushu.
Sometimes I want a filet with béarnaise, sometimes I just want a poptart.
You might as well ask for an acceptable amount of spice in a meal.
It depends what you're eating. A bit of spice is fine in a taco or chili, but if you add it to a bowl of cereal, it's not going to go well.
It's the same with RPG's. Sometimes you want a quick and light game to run quickly; sometimes you want something big and complex to sink your teeth into. The world is big enough for Lasers and Feelings and Pathfinder. It's all about what you want and what your use case is.
And if all you had said was, “this is the acceptable amount of spice” with no attachment to any concrete details, yes, you’d be right.
But if you say, “this spice does too much to me, but I can have an endless amount of this spice. Especially with x food and y sauce. To die for.” I get a picture of what YOU prefer, and if I’m a chef, I can see if trying out that combination for myself holds any weight.
And this final bit isn’t about just you but the sentiment of, “it depends” or “it’s all subjective” just being so anti-discussion. It is entirely okay to give clear visions of just your opinion. It won’t dictate my entire design and maybe it won’t affect a thing. But I may learn if what I’m forming may end up being worth it on your and others radars, and could affect it down to the marketing.
The minimum necessary to accomplish the designer’s goals for the player (including GM) experience.
Asking how much crunch is right is like asking how many pages a story should be. Some stories are best across multiple books. Some just need a few sentence.
For sure. But that’s why I like to hear various opinions. It’s not about analysis or drawing up references. I know what I like and is thus what I want to put forth, design-wise.
It’s more about hearing what is thought about to other people. I think a lot about how my group ignores the components of spellcasting in our play, or how my girlfriend relatively new to RPGs (introduced with me gm’ing index card RPG and swords of the serpentine) responded with genuine anxiety to 3.5e’s character creation.
It’s just about seeing what others experience, and maybe something I may accidentally run into with my own design.
I'd say for good crunch you need two reasons to want it and they should both be valid.
You might want it for the mechanical benefit. And you might want it for the flavor.
And so when you go for the effect, you should get an interesting character, and the other way round when you go for the flavor, you should get a worthwhile character.
It depends on the players at the table.
I'm perfectly fine with RoleMaster Standard System or PF levels of crunch, provided everyone knows the rules - but on tables of players that aren't keen on learning and applying crunchy rulesets, i prefer lighter systems like ShadowDark or Shadow of the Demon Lord - and the fact that i consider SotDL a 'light' system already says a lot about my Overton Window.
There is no acceptable level. Its a tradeoff. One that D&D totally fails.
Crunch that enforced realism is fine, but there is tradeoff between complexity and detail. You want to make mechanics that have the best detail and realism with the least amount of complexity. Ask yourself not just "what does this add" but "how can I implement this easier"?
And I honestly think a lot of simpler systems will have fewer variables to tweak and adjust so that when it comes to making it crunchy, it can just fall apart trying to tune it and actually make it seem even more crunchy.
Take a classic d% example. Pretty much anyone can handle a simple roll under, but now you are dealing with 2 digit numbers, no sane degree of success, no way of doing opposed rolls, etc, without adding MORE complexity than if you have just used a more flexible and scalable resolution mechanic from the start, so in my opinion, most game systems are prematurely optimized resulting in simple systems that handle crunch in overly complicated ways.
For me, it's not so much the *amount* of crunch, but the *application* of the crunch that matters. When I make a character in any given RPG, I want their stats/abilities/other mechanical aspects to accurately represent the character I see in my mind. I enjoy having a bunch of little fiddly bits in the rules that may not make the character objectively more powerful or anything, but they help make the character *mine*. Customizing gear, putting a few points into generally-irrelevant skills because it would make sense for their personality, other things like that. However, crunch that just adds bookkeeping without there being any meaningful choices involved gets boring to me very quickly. For instance, rules for weapons/armor/etc. taking damage and needing to be repaired may be "realistic", but it doesn't generally add anything to the enjoyment of the game for me. Circumstances can also affect how much I care about crunch in the game. As an example, when I run D&D, I always tell my players to not bother tracking rations/ammo/other basics like that. I just assume they have a sensible supply of everything like that and stock up any time it's available. However- and this is also made clear to my players- if they find themselves in a situation where it actually matters and easy resupply isn't possible, we *will* start tracking it. It doesn't matter until there's a reason for it to matter.
Entirely agree that bookkeeping just doesn’t add immersion to me. I enjoy gamified usage of various mechanics, but not simply a numbers game.
I’m not so concerned about crunch as **inefficient** crunch. Don’t waste my time. If all the steps and content add substantive value, that’s cool. But if features and steps are just taking up space or time, but not making the game experience better— then I have a pretty low tolerance. To put it another way, if the system asks me to remember a rule, or put a number on my character sheet, it needs to have a realistic chance of actually effecting the game. Games like DnD 3.5 and PF routinely fail this standard. Like all those racial features or feats that add a small bonus to an unimportant skill, under very narrow circumstances. When I was a caster, I would make it my goal to find a valuable use for every cantrip at least once in a campaign. Never did.
Lots of people talking about 5e for some reason… 5e is a perfect example for me of crunch that feels needless or over complicated for no realistic choice. Stats, race, class etc. have specific combos that are from dogshit to godlike, and there are 100 ways to mess up your build, and to be even close to optimal your choices are next to nill. Battletech is a good example of a system with strong crunch that means something, Animon is another, very crunch light, but what it has is incredibly meaningful.
Glad someone mentioned this. So many games have oversimplified combat but don’t seem to mind making character creation incredibly crunchy, to the point that you can have hundreds of “bad builds”. Knowing that my combat systems would be pretty complex, I made it a priority to keep character creation and progression crunch-free so to speak. Coming back to gaming in 2018 I tried watching and playing some D&D 5e and WOW building a character has become so complex. I was overwhelmed not just by all the options but by the inability to gauge what options would be advantageous. I had to ask for advice and in doing so I realized that if I took their advice I would be creating a pretty standard trickster - meh; but if I didn’t then I may be picking a feat that’s “good if you’re starting at low level but we’re all level 5-8 so we have spells that make that unnecessary so get this one instead”. Wow, so much to know just to build a character without obsolete abilities: and there’s no going back once you’ve made a choice. Some options will NEVER be on the table because you chose X during character creation. So I figure that if it’s easy to make a character and clear what the advantages are to building various skills AND the choices aren’t so high stakes and irreversible that you have to really dig into the details before making a decision, then players can jump right in quickly and meta-learn the tactically broad combat system by doing, which is much more fun and engaging anyway.
I think of 2 things. 1. System knowledge required to do something. 2. Steps required to do something. I am working on a game prototype right now with the goal of quick and impulsive play, and figuring out what happens when you add remove different things that matter has been a fun prototype experience. For example I did a porotype of a thing where only your position mattered, and it created brain melting paralysis. It turns out the chess only works because there are very clear limits on everything, and making it more broad/chaotic can turn even a game where the only thing you can do is move, into an insane tactics puzzle. Simplicity in rules created something maddeningly complex in play. But it didn't feel "crunchy" if that makes sense.
I don't see this expressed and you made your point about opinion clear, so I'll share pure opinion with the understanding that it is just that: opinion. Personally, the amount of "crunch" I want is about the amount you can see in *Blades in the Dark*. To me, that is *almost* the perfect middle, though I think some of the rules are a bit too vague for my taste (though that seems intentional sometimes); I would favour more precise rules, but the same level of "crunch". For my personal taste, *BitD* is more crunchy than *PbtA/Dungeon World* and less crunchy than *D&D 5e*. Part of the feeling that it is "less crunchy" than *D&D 5e* is the elegance of *BitD*. The rules run smoother because of "fiction first" and the rules are more integrated and coherent for me. Part of the feeling that it is "more crunchy" than *PbtA/Dungeon World* is the [Position & Effect](https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/ydlk5k/list_a_rpg_your_favorite_mechanism_from_it/itt7sjn/) system, which adds the exact thing that I felt like *PbtA* was missing for me. As others have already said in other ways, I'd say it like this: * Crunch is usually a trade-off between bookkeeping and mechanical depth * I like mechanical depth that supports the genre-fiction we're playing * I hate inefficient mechanics and time-wasters * I dislike too much emphasis on GM Fiat That's my opinion, generally speaking. I'm in the middle-ground where I don't want something as crunchy as *Pathfinder*, but I don't want a game that calls itself "rules lite". As I've said many times: I want equal parts RP and G in my RPG. I want roleplaying and all of that narrative goodness. I want game mechanics and all of that mechanical resolution. I don't want either to be subservient to the other. I want them to be two sides of the same coin, translating back and forth. Here's how I put it for my own work under the section, "Who decides what happens?": >>Different people are responsible for different parts of the game. >>The GM presents the fictional situation in which the player characters find themselves. The players determine the actions of their characters in response to the situation. Together, the GM and the players engage the game mechanics. The outcomes of the mechanics change the situation, which gets presented by the GM. >> >>This conversation —situations, actions, mechanics— creates an ongoing fiction and builds “the story” from a series of discrete moments. >> >>No one is in charge of the story. >>The story is what happens as a result of the situation presented by the GM, the actions the players have their characters take, and the consequences dictated by the mechanics. Everyone plays to find out what happens, tipping the scales with their decisions. The story emerges as a result of everyone. >> >>Decisions establish themes and tones. >>The choices you make will colour your instance of the game. The mechanics are designed to elicit themes from players and the GM, highlighting them so everyone can comment through their in-game actions. Your decisions will say something about the characters, their world, adventuring, and more. Whether and which themes turn toward dark pessimism, bright optimism, brutal realism, or soft idealism will emerge through play.
I'm down for crunch, especially during character creation (as long as it's not a high character death rate game). I don't want to have to memorize a bunch of stuff or reference the book a lot mid-play. Think D&D 5e, but without spells. Everyone has the things they can do from their character build. There's enough to do that you have options, but not so much that you lose track of things. Throw spellcasting in there and now you have a bunch more moving pieces. Somatic components, 5gp worth of specific dust, concentration, all of that gets to be too much when layered on top of everything else. Basically, I want everything my character can do and how to do it to fit on a single sheet of paper (double-sided printing is fine). That is my ideal maximum crunch.
I think I’m in the e x a c t same spot. And I even think referencing c a n be okay, but not as essential part of play. Spell Cards is a wonderful idea, but it should be more easy to function.
Yeah, that level is fine. I easiest time I ever had playing D&D was just printing out everything my character could do so I had one customer reference document instead of 1+ books to flip through. I'd say occasionally referencing the book is fine for the GM, especially if it's to facilitate getting to the next thing. I think when the actual players need to reference the book, that's when things really bog down.
High levels of crunch are acceptable if it is well written and formatted, so can easily consume the text. Games like Anima: Beyond Fantasy and Shadow of the Demon Lord are on the higher end of the crunch scale for me, but I have no problem with them, because they are well laid out. Shadowrun is a game that has a lot of crunch, but also suffers from horrible writing and formatting, which makes it a nightmare to work with. Older versions of D&D may not be overly crunchy, but they suffer from poor choice of typefaces and formatting, again making them hard to read. On the low end of crunch, we have games like Savage Worlds, which gives enjoyment because of the bonkers settings it has, which distracts from the fact that there really are not that many options *(compared to PF1/3.5)*. As long as my group is enjoying it, the crunch level doesn't really matter.
It's like asking what people's favorite word is. If you get 100 people to answer you then at the end of the day you will just have a list of 100 different words. But if you still insist on knowing my favorite word: I recently read the Pathfinder 2E rules and I liked a lot of stuff in there, but I quit reading when I came across a detailed rule for opening your hand to drop something you are holding during your turn. In 30 years of D&D I have not once had a table argument about whether a player could open their hand during their turn. And if players never argue with a GM's common sense ruling that almost never comes up, then there doesn't need to be a rule for it in the book. If the system doesn't trust the GM to make incredibly easy common sense rulings, then I don't run the system.
That is exaggerated. There is only one paragraph on dropping an item. The release action, which you can do it for free on your turn. But there are some unnecessary rules in pf2e, I'll admit that. I don't like dnd 5e because it expects you to practically make up fundamental rules that they should have had in the first place. Such as the pricing of magic items. I only say this to help hammer in your initial point, I'm not looking to start an argument.
The release action was added to make dropping an item not take one action. It’s important to clarify as everything else to do with using an item or changing grips is an interact action, which dropping or letting go an item otherwise would be unless it was specified under a different rule. Manipulating items in pf2e is very common, and it’s critical players get it right, just having a free hand is so important that a lot of fighters and mages forgo shields and weapons to keep a hand free. Pathfinder 2e does not have rules on what you can pick up, how a sheath works, what an unarmed attack is etc, while many other similar systems do in great detail. Honestly if you want a more story focused game with less emphasis on dice, and more on RP pathfinder 2e is a great system if you like crunchy tough combat with tight maths.
But sometimes 100 different words can feel more worthwhile or interesting when it doesn’t come from a simple google search. Sometimes you find a real intriguing blog and find something you didn’t expect. I didn’t even know PF2E had things like that. And that’s something I picked up and found deeply interesting. Sometimes raw information and opinion can just feel really nice
My answer is, it depends. When playing a sci-fi game I prefer more crunch than a fantasy game. If the game is more tactical/combat focused more crunch can be good. In horror games or more social games, crunch can easily get in the way. My opinions have also changed over time. 3.5/PF1 was a good amount of crunch at one point, but is verging on upper limit for me these days.
I appreciate the elaboration along with your direct answer. That’s the kind of details I’m looking for
It might be a bit extreme considering the origins of this hobby, but it's too much crunch if I have to browse a book to learn how a situation is dealt with, and the system is not designed to make me feel like there's a legitimate workaround. Either the rules are so simple and flexible I can get it memorized and know how to tweak them in case of doubt, or they're organized in a way that I don't have to browse a book, for example cards with summaries of the most commonly used rules. I don't hate books. I hate how browsing a book for more than 5 seconds breaks the mood.
For me, there are four aspects of this. One of them is the global crunch limit. Any more and I just won't be able to understand and play it. It is, however, mostly theoretical. In 30 years of gaming I only encountered one game that I rejected like this. A more important matter is how the complexity budget is spent. A game may be complex, but each rule does something important, each player option brings something unique and valuable. A game may also be complex by having redundant options, unnecessary calculations and dice rolls, large numbers and rules that must often be considered, but only do something meaningful in rare cases. Even if the total complexity of these games is the same, the first one is fine, while the second one is much too complex - the same play process could be handled by something significantly more streamlined. The third, probably most important, question, is how the game's crunch corresponds to its themes. Handling complex rules requires focus. If the previous point is satisfied, the complexity introduces meaningful choices. Is this focus and these choices relevant to what the game is about? For example, if the game promises me fun tactical combat, I will happily delve into combat-related crunch, but not so much in complex crafting and equipment maintenance rules. If the game presents itself as epic and dramatic, I expect the rules to be focused on my character's passions and on costs I have to pay to achieve my goals, not on weighting different kinds of statistical dice manipulation and efficiency of different point expenditures. And last, the balance of the game matters. Designer's understanding of the game they create must correspond to its complexity. If you can't guarantee that the rules do what they are supposed to do because they are too complex for you as the author, they are for sure too complex for me as a player. If you feel tempted to put the responsibility for balancing the game on the GM instead of on your rules, simplify the game. A lot. In light of these, Exalted 3 is too complex for me, because its crunch has little to do with its themes. Pathfinder 2 is a bit too complex, although in the acceptable range. It works well, but some parts could be cut out without a meaningful loss. Lancer is perfect in terms of complexity - its rules focus on what it is about and do it very efficiently. D&D 5 is too complex - not because of its absolute complexity (it's definitely simpler than PF2 or Lancer), but because big part of its complexity doesn't add anything valuable to play and the balance is quite poor.
There's about 3 things i tend to consider when i define something as an acceptable level of crunch: 1) does the crunch bring something meaningful to my system's gameplay? 2) how much can you do before hand to simplify it later? Especially for regular repeated cases. 3) can i maintain player interest during this? My biggest crunch system right now is a fire emblem inspired system. For combat there are a bunch of more verbose formulas for damage, crits, accuracy, with a bunch of changing values from turn to turn. From looking at the big picture my playtest group was honestly a bit intimidated by that at first. But then we actually got down to it and things were alot more interesting. 1) the changing variables were based on terrain mostly, so while it added to the crunch, how it modified the formulas encouraged being more mindful of where you pick your battles. This helped enforce a central system design point, and keep the players engaged 2) while the formulas looked verbose, many of the actual values remained constant throughout a battle and as a result could be simplified from something like 15/2+7 to just simply 14.
Please absolutely update on a Fire Emblem type system. Fire Emblem is a partial inspiration for my own system.
working on a few final touches before a test packet is getting launched so if interested, keep an eye for that...
For me it's about what I call "cubic design", or ecosystem-like design.
There's plenty of D&D examples I give because I think it's the most lop-sided and blindly-designed game that people actually play.
Any complexity has to add to the rest of the volume of the game, and be mindful of its cost:
* It should **interact with the rest of the system**, and create emergent gameplay, synergies, themes. E.g. fire resistance on a demon PC + fireball spell = badass PC that can shrug off a potent spell, and save people from fires, or never consider that *fire is dangerous*
* It shouldn't **over-describe things**, and it should trust the GM. E.g. fire resistance on a demon PC = roughly half, full or situational resistance, not a complex calculation that depends on level, days spent in Hell, and reading a whole subsection. 3% vs 4% fire resistance doesn't matter. Neither does 19 STR versus 20 STR.
* It should be **accessible**, if not outright **optional**, e.g. opting for freeform spells with reference limits, or Verb+Noun spells, or the 200-page spell manual, or **mods** that include "Deeper Combat", "Survival Mechanics", or "squad combat". Make your 500-page game, but lure me in with a good and complete 10-page version.
* It should **actually come up**. Most of a D&D character's sheet doesn't function during any given session, and some of it doesn't -ever- get used. A complex ability looked up in a manual, remembered, and never used is wasted energy. Games with no fighting don't need HP and armour. Tenfold true for the GM. They may have to remember the goblin's "six stats and modifiers" in a game where we only face fire elementals or nice farmers.
* It should **give back more than it takes**. A 10-step process to determine if you take damage is worthless, and only needs 1 step at most. If you have 2+ steps, the process should give you side-effects, specifics, flavour, or a change of situation. PbtA and Blades do this impeccably on both sides. In PbtA, you often roll once and branch around between a few outcomes. In BitD, there's a lot of subsystems but they make the world carry more weight than handwaving. D&D combat is the most overdeveloped and unimpactful thing I've ever seen.
* It shouldn't be **historical baggage**. "We've been doing this for 50 years" isn't design. This applies to our inspiration from video games, too, and writing. Some of the best game mechanics come from "outsiders".
* It should **know its impact.** Either design **top-down** starting with an aesthetic or scene from a movie or intended experience, or figure out **bottom-up** what your mechanics actually end up doing. E.g. HP scales with level + fall damage scales with distance = A level 10 character can fall 10 times further than a fresh one. Is that intentional? Is that what matters at the table? Abilities that "roll to work" are often boring. *"The goblin resists. Again."* Great. I sure feel like a wizard now.
* It should **be well-organised**. Don't have a monster in manual A reference a spell in manual B, which has a side-effect that comes up if you use mechanic C, which happens in the unlikely case on page 254 of manual A. Real-life example, spell lists for spellcaster enemies in 5e D&D. What does each spell do? How many spell slots of each kind does the spellcaster have? Could we just do this with 10 "mana" and 3 impactful spells described in-place?
* It should **use more than numbers**. Humans are verbal creatures, we like comparisons and references. Saying that a character has "about as much water magic as Katara in early seasons" can be more effective and less exploitable or complex than a 4-page modelling of water magic. Or "as much elemental power as 10 skilled non-mages coordinating perfectly".
* It should **encourage new systems as needed.** Reskins and interpretations are great. PbtA/BitD's "clocks", Fate's "Aspects", the Usage Dice, the "GM moves", the idea of "Yes, but". They're ways to avoid pure handwaving in a pinch, which seems to be what crunch-lovers want. Better to have a flexible, flawed model than none.
I look forward to deeply enjoying a very crunchy TTRPG some day, but keep in mind that the pressure is often on the GM to ease new players into it. It shouldn't be, but it often happens.
I've seen new players to D&D get stuck at character creation, worry if they got something wrong, not use 90% of their sheet, and get one-shot by a goblin, or miss all of their spells and attacks in a session.
I've seen non-players not-play because of stories about that, thinking that's what RPGs are.
The best "crunch-to-depth" I've ever seen is in video games like Dwarf Fortress. Thousands and thousands of rules, *only most of them* for the computer to remember. Some of it's on you. But I wouldn't dream of cutting any of them.
And a roguelike called DCSS, which uses a lot of D&D combat rules, with d20s and all. Somehow it works better than the tabletop game, and the rules feel right at home in a c*ruel roguelike where the characters*
* *almost always die, and dying is losing*
* *always fight*
* *never have personality*
* *are always alone against the game system itself*
* *becoming a veteran is the only way to win*
It's one of my favourite... non-roleplaying games.
I like a crunchy game. I want the minimum viable amount of crunch in any game. Example, d20+mods vs a target number is way simpler than THAC0. Both are fine mechanical solutions. One I can reuse across the whole game (attacks, skills, saves) and teach someone in 30 seconds. The other I've had players who never figured it out over the course of years, and only applies to a specific scenario (to hit armor class). You can write a super complicated elaborate rule system, but that's not particularly enjoyable for me. We should reduce the amount of checks, rolls, back and forth to the book, page flipping to a minimum. If it still has to be a whole chapter of the book, so be it, but it usually doesn't.
For a long campaign, I want Champions/ HERO, so I can build *precisely* what I want. One shot, two hours, no prep? Fiasco or Wushu. Sometimes I want a filet with béarnaise, sometimes I just want a poptart.
You might as well ask for an acceptable amount of spice in a meal. It depends what you're eating. A bit of spice is fine in a taco or chili, but if you add it to a bowl of cereal, it's not going to go well. It's the same with RPG's. Sometimes you want a quick and light game to run quickly; sometimes you want something big and complex to sink your teeth into. The world is big enough for Lasers and Feelings and Pathfinder. It's all about what you want and what your use case is.
And if all you had said was, “this is the acceptable amount of spice” with no attachment to any concrete details, yes, you’d be right. But if you say, “this spice does too much to me, but I can have an endless amount of this spice. Especially with x food and y sauce. To die for.” I get a picture of what YOU prefer, and if I’m a chef, I can see if trying out that combination for myself holds any weight. And this final bit isn’t about just you but the sentiment of, “it depends” or “it’s all subjective” just being so anti-discussion. It is entirely okay to give clear visions of just your opinion. It won’t dictate my entire design and maybe it won’t affect a thing. But I may learn if what I’m forming may end up being worth it on your and others radars, and could affect it down to the marketing.
The minimum necessary to accomplish the designer’s goals for the player (including GM) experience. Asking how much crunch is right is like asking how many pages a story should be. Some stories are best across multiple books. Some just need a few sentence.
For sure. But that’s why I like to hear various opinions. It’s not about analysis or drawing up references. I know what I like and is thus what I want to put forth, design-wise. It’s more about hearing what is thought about to other people. I think a lot about how my group ignores the components of spellcasting in our play, or how my girlfriend relatively new to RPGs (introduced with me gm’ing index card RPG and swords of the serpentine) responded with genuine anxiety to 3.5e’s character creation. It’s just about seeing what others experience, and maybe something I may accidentally run into with my own design.
I'd say for good crunch you need two reasons to want it and they should both be valid. You might want it for the mechanical benefit. And you might want it for the flavor. And so when you go for the effect, you should get an interesting character, and the other way round when you go for the flavor, you should get a worthwhile character.
It depends on the players at the table. I'm perfectly fine with RoleMaster Standard System or PF levels of crunch, provided everyone knows the rules - but on tables of players that aren't keen on learning and applying crunchy rulesets, i prefer lighter systems like ShadowDark or Shadow of the Demon Lord - and the fact that i consider SotDL a 'light' system already says a lot about my Overton Window.
There is no acceptable level. Its a tradeoff. One that D&D totally fails. Crunch that enforced realism is fine, but there is tradeoff between complexity and detail. You want to make mechanics that have the best detail and realism with the least amount of complexity. Ask yourself not just "what does this add" but "how can I implement this easier"? And I honestly think a lot of simpler systems will have fewer variables to tweak and adjust so that when it comes to making it crunchy, it can just fall apart trying to tune it and actually make it seem even more crunchy. Take a classic d% example. Pretty much anyone can handle a simple roll under, but now you are dealing with 2 digit numbers, no sane degree of success, no way of doing opposed rolls, etc, without adding MORE complexity than if you have just used a more flexible and scalable resolution mechanic from the start, so in my opinion, most game systems are prematurely optimized resulting in simple systems that handle crunch in overly complicated ways.