Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 18, 2023, 10:33:56 AM
There are two other consideration. Firstly, is the DM's familiarity with the system. A system that you are familiar with will run smoother regardless of complexity.

This is the point that resonates most with my experience. The DM can turn any system into a RP nightmare if they do not understand the system and how all of the parts work off each other.

I don't think crunch, by itself, impacts roleplay much at all.

Players do what the game incentivizes them to do. If the game doesn't mechanically reward roleplaying with XP, for example, no amount of mechanics is going to make much difference. Players that like to roleplay will, and players that just want to roll dice and get on with it will do that.

If there is something mechanical in the system, or a dynamic in that campaign or gaming group, that rewards roleplaying, then players will do more of it. It's not about how crunchy the mechanics are. It takes a *reason* to engage with those mechanics by roleplaying.

The system needs enough crunch that I can create any character type that appears in the game world lore/fiction, I can customize that character to the point where it's not just interchangeable with every other soldier/bard/starfighter pilot, and it runs the game world in a way that feels authentic to the setting.

It probably doesn't need hundreds of tables, or dice rolls for how well I get out of bed in the morning.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 18, 2023, 12:18:15 PM
The system needs enough crunch that I can create any character type that appears in the game world lore/fiction, I can customize that character to the point where it's not just interchangeable with every other soldier/bard/starfighter pilot, and it runs the game world in a way that feels authentic to the setting.

This is exactly my favorite method. No more than one feature per trait, all features must reflect some appropriate archetype, but a single archetype can have multiple features, and a single feature multiple quantities (e.g., combat +3 or combat +7).

Endless customization and no bloat.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/09/one-mechanic-per-archetypal-trait.html

In reading this thread I feel the need to define terms. In this case, "Roleplaying" appears to mean different things to different people.

For me, I can roleplay anything. No mechanics enter into it. I'm just assuming a personality, and then acting in character. By "acting" I mostly mean verbally. So here's my token in a game. He's a warrior. I assign him some personality traits, a few cultural tidbits, and a bad accent or speaking mannerisms (by preference in my case). So, Giovanni the Dandy behaves in this way. I make a point of describing his appearance and reactions, I speak in character, I engage in banter, I think out loud. I am interested in doing things that fit his personality, I resist doing things that don't fit.

The rules have nothing to do with this. I've been doing it since I was a toddler sitting on the carpet playing with toys.

Reading the responses in this thread, I get the impression that folks are mainly concerned with task resolution mechanics. To me, that's more about character capabilities then it is about roleplaying. You might argue that I can't roleplay certain types if the mechanics don't allow me the full range of action that I feel is essential to my roleplay. Um, OK, I guess I can get the gist, but I find it hard to label that roleplaying, by my definition.

To sum up in one line, I don't feel that rules systems affect my roleplay in any way.

Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 18, 2023, 08:56:38 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 18, 2023, 08:35:00 AM
It's not how much crunch you have.  It's which crunch you have, how that pertains to the genre, setting, and most of all the players.  And how well you use the crunch you do use. 

In this regard, I can appreciate simulationist-related crunch more than "board game" crunch, as one provides guidance in navigating the game world while the other is just there to punish play styles that are not the meta.

I think the "board game" aspect depends on how well the mechanics match with the world. Though there is also the equivalent in non-mechanics. I sometimes find that without mechanics like skills and abilities, the game can become "How well does Bob the engineer solve this trap" rather than "How well does Presto the Wizard solve this trap?" 

It's also important how the skill roll is resolved. Player choices need to make a difference, rather than just have a fixed set of skill rolls required to get through. I think it's important for skills to give choices to the players, and for player choices to affect what skills are rolled. So, in a social situation, an initial skill roll might get the player information about what an NPC is looking for and what their mindset is. Then they can choose how to approach based on that.

I've only briefly tried Pathfinder at a convention, but more broadly, I found that when playing D&D-based games, it works best if the world and adventures are tailored to fit the mechanics.

Combat is a common case. In real life and in drama, a deadly fight is extremely emotional and important to the participants' lives. But it can be reduced down to feeling like a board game or intellectual exercise. Having it feel real and visceral is a matter of connecting the mechanics and choices into players' view of the fictional world. From my last session, when our noble knight was dragging a vampire out of a salt pool into the magical sunlight their priest had conjured, the players all got into it.

I honestly couldn't sit through the Rules Lawyer video. I have a somewhat low tolerance for actual plays to begin with, and they're doing a style of roleplaying that is nails-on-a-chalkboard to me. Too much rules-lawyering (no pun intended), and when they are "roleplaying" its too much clowning for my taste.

So here's my partially uneducated take.

I would phrase it less as "more crunch vs. less" and more as "good rules vs. bad". I've always said that a good game is one in which the players decide what they want to do, and then look at their character sheet to see what they should roll. A bad game is one where they look at their character sheet first to see what they can do. That principle is mostly going to bias me towards less crunchy games, but there are exceptions.

An example I like to use for this is grappling. Grappling is both highly dramatic, and often the sensible strategy within the fiction of the game. However, RPG rules have always struggled with it, and when it is represented it often isn't worthwhile, either from a hassle perspective, or from an in-universe reward perspective. That's honestly kind of fair. Grappling is really complicated, and it's hard to make it useful without making it overpowered. Consequently, you rarely ever see it used. The one positive experience I've had with RPG grappling was in WFRP 4e, which is a pretty crunchy system. But in that case, I found the crunch level hit the right balance of making an action which my character would logically take viable but not overpowered.

Of course a lot of this is on the GM, and how they utilize the rules at their disposal. I think a good general rule is that crunch which adds to the "meta" complexity (action economy rules, meta-currency, specifically listed actions) is likely to inhibit roleplaying, whereas simulationist crunch, if it's well designed, might not.

The one thing from the Rules Lawyer video that I do sympathize with is the player who said that he likes to use what's on his character sheet to inform his understanding of how the character should be roleplayed. I also enjoy that, and more involved systems do facilitate it.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 18, 2023, 08:29:49 AM
It depends on the system and how the crunch is executed.

Most of the time, "crunchy" is just a euphemism for poorly optimized. If this is the case, then the sheer weight of operating the game reduces the mental space players have for creativity or roleplay. However, this is not a universal truth and you can have crunchy games which don't use so much of the player's brainpower that they displace these things.

This answer. We found Modiphius' system hindered role-playing. Six different wound tracks and trying to constantly get whatever sort of points you need to power up rolls made role-playing impossible.

Traveller, which is crunchy IMO, doesn't hinder role-playing. Our group still manages role-playing and in-character stuff in the middle of crazy crunchy combat like playing Mongoose V2 starship combat for the first time.

Quote from: Baron on April 18, 2023, 02:25:52 PM
In reading this thread I feel the need to define terms. In this case, "Roleplaying" appears to mean different things to different people.

For me, I can roleplay anything. No mechanics enter into it. I'm just assuming a personality, and then acting in character. By "acting" I mostly mean verbally. So here's my token in a game. He's a warrior. I assign him some personality traits, a few cultural tidbits, and a bad accent or speaking mannerisms (by preference in my case). So, Giovanni the Dandy behaves in this way. I make a point of describing his appearance and reactions, I speak in character, I engage in banter, I think out loud. I am interested in doing things that fit his personality, I resist doing things that don't fit.

The rules have nothing to do with this. I've been doing it since I was a toddler sitting on the carpet playing with toys.

Reading the responses in this thread, I get the impression that folks are mainly concerned with task resolution mechanics. To me, that's more about character capabilities then it is about roleplaying. You might argue that I can't roleplay certain types if the mechanics don't allow me the full range of action that I feel is essential to my roleplay. Um, OK, I guess I can get the gist, but I find it hard to label that roleplaying, by my definition.

To sum up in one line, I don't feel that rules systems affect my roleplay in any way.

I agree, and that's what I was trying to get at in my comment. Players who enjoy roleplaying the way I think you and I define it will do it regardless of the mechanics or crunch, and players who don't won't.

I do think that a player who isn't a big roleplayer normally may be more likely to play the personality traits or do the voice if it helps them achieve a mechanical result, e.g. more XP, inspiration/bennies/luck dice, advantage or bonuses to a die roll...

Short answer: Yes enable roleplaying and depends on how crunchy the system is.

As a beginner myself, entering to this hobby. With the few games I played, I prefer simulation with a bit of crunch anytime over narrative or other definition of RPG.

The DM should know the rules and handle it smooth to the player.

If is narrative it becomes something else. It's not RPG. Probably something like a gamebook with more game mechanics.
If it is acting and funny voice, I'm afraid to said it's not RPG. It is more like a game for actors or storytellers. I remember when I was a child, I had an uncle who told mostly horror stories, and I remember that sometimes I participated in his stories making some decisions influencing the story.

If the game doesn't have game mechanics that enforce the "living world" where the player can "role play" this "real fictitious world" is like playing the Sims or other "life simulator". Let put it this way, if I play Doom, I'm role-playing a Demon Slayer? You see.. Is interpretation. Fun fact: Doom was inspired by D&D

The inversion comes after you know the system and how to play. The game mechanics have nothing to do per se, yet the game mechanics have an important role. You can use D&D rules or Call Cthulhu and the system will help to create the atmosphere (setting the world and interaction) along with the narrative to help to set the tone and the story. When the heroes die is because of the game mechanics, is established by the rules, not because of the narrative.

One of the reason Lord of the Ring became popular it was the detail Tolkien wrote about the whole fictional world and the whole interaction. Add on top of that an RPG system, you have an RPG. Look to this scenario: When Frodo falls before the gates of Mordor, how will you decide why he fell? And will he be detected when the orcs close in to see what's happening?

Quote from: Festus on April 18, 2023, 04:39:02 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 18, 2023, 02:25:52 PM
In reading this thread I feel the need to define terms. In this case, "Roleplaying" appears to mean different things to different people.

For me, I can roleplay anything. No mechanics enter into it. I'm just assuming a personality, and then acting in character. By "acting" I mostly mean verbally. So here's my token in a game. He's a warrior. I assign him some personality traits, a few cultural tidbits, and a bad accent or speaking mannerisms (by preference in my case). So, Giovanni the Dandy behaves in this way. I make a point of describing his appearance and reactions, I speak in character, I engage in banter, I think out loud. I am interested in doing things that fit his personality, I resist doing things that don't fit.

The rules have nothing to do with this. I've been doing it since I was a toddler sitting on the carpet playing with toys.

Reading the responses in this thread, I get the impression that folks are mainly concerned with task resolution mechanics. To me, that's more about character capabilities then it is about roleplaying. You might argue that I can't roleplay certain types if the mechanics don't allow me the full range of action that I feel is essential to my roleplay. Um, OK, I guess I can get the gist, but I find it hard to label that roleplaying, by my definition.

To sum up in one line, I don't feel that rules systems affect my roleplay in any way.

I agree, and that's what I was trying to get at in my comment. Players who enjoy roleplaying the way I think you and I define it will do it regardless of the mechanics or crunch, and players who don't won't.

I do think that a player who isn't a big roleplayer normally may be more likely to play the personality traits or do the voice if it helps them achieve a mechanical result, e.g. more XP, inspiration/bennies/luck dice, advantage or bonuses to a die roll...

I answered in terms of the system being so distractingly crunchy that you could not role-play, because the system required too much work.

Quote from: Baron on April 18, 2023, 02:25:52 PM
In reading this thread I feel the need to define terms. In this case, "Roleplaying" appears to mean different things to different people.

For me, I can roleplay anything. No mechanics enter into it. I'm just assuming a personality, and then acting in character. By "acting" I mostly mean verbally. So here's my token in a game. He's a warrior. I assign him some personality traits, a few cultural tidbits, and a bad accent or speaking mannerisms (by preference in my case). So, Giovanni the Dandy behaves in this way. I make a point of describing his appearance and reactions, I speak in character, I engage in banter, I think out loud. I am interested in doing things that fit his personality, I resist doing things that don't fit.

Or the even simpler version:  I consider what I would do if I were the character in this situation, and then have the character do that.  That's the heart of it, making a decision as if you were the character.  All the rest, voices, personality, background, props, hooks into the mechanics, whatever--may be a tool that helps the player role-play, but it isn't role-play.  Or more clearly, acting is acting, and role-play is role-play, and any correlation between them is rather incidental to the definitions but not to the results.

Think of it as akin  to the difference between stage acting in a very minimal production versus acting in a grand film with intricate sets.  Adding the sets change the heart of the acting.  It does give it some "color".   And of course, as that stuff gets added in, it does change some of the dynamics, the place of the other tools, etc.  So back to the correlation.

I need a certain amount of verisimilitude when I'm gaming.  If a system doesn't take mechanical notice of things happening, like a penalty to roundhouse kicking a ninja off a roof when it's pouring rain at night, it doesn't feel real to me.  I have an instant dislike of "rules-lite" systems as a consequence, because in glossing over all the crunch the things going on around my character no longer feel significant.  There are rulesets that are simply too crunchy on the other hand; I want enough crunch to feel connected to the world, not to roll on tables to see if I get a finger cramp from pulling a trigger.

Quote from: Valatar on April 18, 2023, 09:14:36 PM
I need a certain amount of verisimilitude when I'm gaming.  If a system doesn't take mechanical notice of things happening, like a penalty to roundhouse kicking a ninja off a roof when it's pouring rain at night, it doesn't feel real to me.  I have an instant dislike of "rules-lite" systems as a consequence, because in glossing over all the crunch the things going on around my character no longer feel significant.  There are rulesets that are simply too crunchy on the other hand; I want enough crunch to feel connected to the world, not to roll on tables to see if I get a finger cramp from pulling a trigger.

Id basically err here as well. I want to feel as incentivized in character as out of character to do things to achieve results that feel appropriate to the tone of the game.

I made a character for the FFG Star Wars rpg, a game which has so many splat books, 3e D&D asked it to get professional help. Despite the roughly 12 trillion words written for those rules, I was mechanically unable to make the assassin character I wished to (surprise knife attacks, poisoning, etc) and ended up with a beat-stick who used a power-knife instead.