Bit of background here. I started playing D&D in 1979. Played RPGs with the same group of guys all my life. We lost all contact with the commercial RPG market in about 1989. I regained contact in about 2002 via the Necromancer Games forum.

I don't play CCGs, or fantasy miniatures, or MMORGPs, or console games. I do play a lot of boardgames, mainly euros and wargames.

The most striking thing I've discovered about today's RPG scene is how much it is all about rules systems, 'crunch' (fuck I hate that word), and the insatiable demand for more of it. Among the people who I played RPGs with, the GM was, almost by definition, the person who was interested in rules and would actually read them. Players are the guys who show up to play, having not read or thought about the game at all since the last session.

While I realize the people I've played RPGs with have always been atypical, I don't recall reams and reams of published supplements expanding the rules to earlier RPGs, like Gamma World (which could have actually used some rules clarification), Call of Cthulhu, and Stormbringer. What I do recall is reams and reams of actual game content in the form of adventures.

Today's RPG model seems fundamentally different. I can see why the big publishers struck on the notion of selling books to players as well as GMs. I'm just a little surprised that they found such an enthusiastic market for these books. Perhaps when RPGs became a much more specialized and geeky hobby after the heyday of mass, casual play, a greater proportion of the remaining player base were indeed gear-heads. And I can also see the influence of Magic: the Gathering, with its reward of system mastery and options that increase player effectiveness.

But what I find difficult to understand is how many of today's small, independent games are also the domain of insatiable system wonks. I mean, weeks after games are published, you see calls for more options, more talents, more feats, more monsters, more spells, when the owners of the game can't possibly have come anywhere near exhausting the existing options. It's simply unfathomable to me how many gamers crave more options for games that they have hardly even played yet.

For example, take Mazes and Minotaurs. It's a simple, home-made, old-school game. From what I understand, only a handful of people have even played it. And yet, in the months after it was released, there was a busy community of contributors eagerly adding more rules, more options, more monsters, more spells. Meanwhile, nobody had actually written any adventures for the game. Heck, nobody was even playing it.

Now, I get the fact that some people just love fiddling with systems. But what I don't get is, is why that population of RPGers seems to dwarf the number of gamers who see encounters, maps, and adventures as the raw material for their games. By my recollection, that wasn't the case 20 years ago.

So what changed? And why?

Great topic!

I wonder if there's any common factors in the gamers who enjoy crunch, that is different from gamers who don't (or gamers who used to play back before the crunch set in).

blame gary?

i'm thinking of the old dragon mag issues, here.  articles would have all of these new expansions you speak of (rules, critters, spells, etc.).  this just wets the appetite of folks who like to tinker with the rules.  then it gets codified, in "best of dragon" issues, and later, UA, and the survival guides.  now you're used to the concept of rules supplements as future releases, not just adventures or setting sourcebooks.

I think the better question is 'when did somebody notice this stuff would move like hotcakes if you made it'. The gearhead tendency has been there a long, long time. Even if it didn't translate to purchases at every table.

Quote from: beeberblame gary?

Indeed, indeed... as early as the Greyhawk supplement for White Box. Also, Blackmoor.

But one ought divide the History of Crunch into at least two phases: "realism" crunch and gamey crunch.

"Realism" = glaive-guisarmes, weapon speed, Rolemaster.

"Gamey" = uhm... err... I dunno... Which RPG first explicitly introduced gamey crunch? Champions?

If Haffrung doesn't object, can I ask Pierce to expand on his division - realism versus gamey?

My memory kinda resembles your description - except that I was always drifting towards some way to decrease the abstraction.  Why? I have no idea - just something in my head that makes me want the world to react in a more "realistic" way. It's always at battle with the voices that are saying, "relax, it's all just an abstraction...relax, it's all just an abstraction..."

But I see where you're coming from, Haffrung...

Maybe something to do with the rise of computers and the crossover between gamers and programmers?

It's far easier to trust a machine than a man.

I'm not quite sure Bradford's statement covers all the bases but it is a large factor.  I also feel that rules like feats and advantages provide ideas for people who lack their own.  If you've ever tried to run an open ended game where nobody had any idea of what they wanted you know what I mean.

From a product perspective more rules = more books = more money.

The business model killed the old 100 page book in a box that was often a fairly complete rpg.

I'll note that many games of the sort were hard to follow and not necessarily simple.  Top Secret anyone?  (ooops there goes another flame war.)

I'm not sure the greater volume of noise to signal equals more readable games.  I've certainly met enough die hard D&D fans who swear by second edition but prove they've never actually read it within five minutes.

Badly written is just badly written.  Overwritten is generally a sign something is badly written.

Quote from: James J SkachIf Haffrung doesn't object, can I ask Pierce to expand on his division - realism versus gamey?

Uhm... not at this point, Skachy... I'm so hung over, it's not funny. Failed my Save vs. Poison. Screw real life--it's too realist!

Quote from: HaffrungThe most striking thing I've discovered about today's RPG scene is how much it is all about rules systems, 'crunch' (fuck I hate that word), and the insatiable demand for more of it. Among the people who I played RPGs with, the GM was, almost by definition, the person who was interested in rules and would actually read them. Players are the guys who show up to play, having not read or thought about the game at all since the last session.

I don't think it's really a "today's RPG scene" thing. Rolemaster (which some would call the undeniable King of Crunch) was first released in 1980. The complete Fighter's Handbook, and subsequent line of player-aimed books filled with new ways to push numbers around on your sheet, came out in '89.

QuoteSo what changed? And why?

The internet showed up and let people know just how many different ways to play there are out there. What was once a book that got flipped through once and subsequently ignored because "nobody would play that" is now an active online community.

Would it be fair to say that an RPG with lots of "crunch" is like a boardgame that is very "fiddly"?

Quote from: BGG GlossaryFiddly
adj. Requiring lots of turn-by-turn maintenance which tends to bog down the ebb and flow of the game.

or like a boardgame that is very "heavy" ?

Quoteheavy
adj. Having very complex rules and/or complex strategies that require deep thought, careful planning, and long playing times.

Quote from: StuartWould it be fair to say that an RPG with lots of "crunch" is like a boardgame that is very "fiddly"?

or like a boardgame that is very "heavy" ?

Yes.

Also, if we're discussing why it is that some games have lots of crunch and others have very little, it's because different people like different things, and prudent salesmen see where the holes are and aim there. You can see it in the predecessors to RPGs, the wargames, as well.

Warhammer is (from what I understand, never having played it) fairly rules light and has a seting that's well flushed out. But on the flip side you get things like Advanced Squad Leader and Star Fleet Battles, each of which has thousands of carefully labelled paragraphs full of crunch, and leave it mostly to other products to determine their settings (ASL has history books, SFB has Star Trek).

I guess it's relative -- 40K is lighter.  Generally "light" games seem to be the sort of things you'll get non-gamers to play as well, and "heavy" games tend to be a gamers-game sort of thing.  40K might be in the middle, but it wouldn't be light in the same way something like Risk would be.

Quote from: StuartI guess it's relative -- 40K is lighter.  Generally "light" games seem to be the sort of things you'll get non-gamers to play as well, and "heavy" games tend to be a gamers-game sort of thing.  40K might be in the middle, but it wouldn't be light in the same way something like Risk would be.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of wargaming experience. Mine is mostly ASL, SFB, and Mechwarrior, with a couple games of Warhammer so far back I can't remember them. If there are much lighter rulesets, substitute those instead.

I'm looking forward to a time when more of an emphasis is put on setting once again; and where "setting" means more than just "that thing where you get regional feats from".

RPGPundit