Greetings, folks.
I recently saw a video by The Rules Lawyer where he attempts to demonstrate how Pathfinder 2e's crunchy rules enable roleplaying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNS1N4dohp0&t=699s&ab_channel=TheRulesLawyer
I, however, find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum, as I detail in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OttIdVb9Ays&ab_channel=Quick%26DirtyRoleplaying
What are your thoughts on the subject matter?
My personal belief is that rules-heavy systems hinder creativity. I'm not sure what they do for or against role playing.
In my 5E games anytime my players want to do something they look at their skill list to see if they are good at it, and if not they often don't bother to try. Or only the one with the best number will try. When I ran OD&D there were no skill lists so nothing to consult, and the players spent more time dreaming up creative solutions.
I'm not sure how this translates into "good role playing" or not. In both cases the players are playing a role based on the information supplied, but in one case the players seem to be more creative doing it.
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.
Quote from: finarvyn on April 18, 2023, 08:09:34 AM
My personal belief is that rules-heavy systems hinder creativity. I'm not sure what they do for or against role playing.
In my 5E games anytime my players want to do something they look at their skill list to see if they are good at it, and if not they often don't bother to try. Or only the one with the best number will try. When I ran OD&D there were no skill lists so nothing to consult, and the players spent more time dreaming up creative solutions.
I'm not sure how this translates into "good role playing" or not. In both cases the players are playing a role based on the information supplied, but in one case the players seem to be more creative doing it.
Yes. Too many limits hinder imagination. Too few limits also hinder imagination. That's why there are some rules, and we aren't just sitting around the table playing "Let's Pretend". The exact optimum line moves group to group, player to player, and by others limits as well. If it's a subject the group knows a fair amount about (even if only an agreed trope-fed version), then less limits are needed. Sometimes you
want to limit imagination, because that's a way to get everyone imaging similar things, and thus able to have a shared mental space.
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.
For 5E in particular, it's misleading to call it crunchy. Yes, in one way it is. But it's mostly the same crunch over and over, flavored differently. "A lot of stuff" and "A lot of crunch" can be aligned, but they aren't always. Both have different effects on the use of imagination.
In case in all of that it wasn't clear, agree entirely that all of this has nothing to do with role-playing one way or the other--except insomuch as it's easier for role-playing to happen in a shared imaginative space, once you establish it, however you do it.
Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 18, 2023, 07:59:04 AM
What are your thoughts on the subject matter?
It boils down to how well you and your group internalize the rules. If the system is not a good fit, after the learning period, then you will find yourself continually going to the rulebooks to look up basic mechanics rather than referencing the various lists like spells, magic items, and monsters. In this case the system is probably be getting in the way.
Or it could mean that you and the group needs organize your references differently. For example create a binder reference like this.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjhTqr5kBNskX_Q17e3-9nbSMp76iD75F8GCksbyOFMGiAs3bzsyyrG0aWW0pXv9r5z1Q_TuQqg4scvuN8yecuyU54Msg5UC4kqy-gjAzf640WJ8qAzuvscLGa078if8IPrt8ZLyNeccwvqPpBXvJxbxUCuIVyBSOHAG1H-GDYBNia706NrRPm5M2CF-w)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjHBRfvELdZJM2QbSxOQQm6y4PIpuP_TLafvZ7fGWgJazfKdk9vvaiBG0kl-lS_3nlapbNLlppgTdA_nj9tXtbu4nUEqYNu0KYoA4q_ZeCF0NPbx51HyYi1M7xBTlqlbB62uTfwmld7WkD0Rsusudsd6wRXiVDLnT8Hws4xg2H-Hn34XSZ28C1tPetpDQ)
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.
This is a good point, Steve.
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.
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.
Well said. Not all crunch is the same. Some is elegant and intuitive, some is unwieldily and distracting.
I need a system to be precisely as cruchy mechanically as is needed to mechanically support my character concept.
Sometimes that means something like BECMI could do it, other times nothing less than Mutants & Masterminds (or similar point buy systems) could express it.
Having played most of the generic concepts in my youth, I generally prefer something at least mid-crunch these days as "Derik the Daring Fighter" (my first Redbook PC back when I was 10) hasn't been something I'm interested in repeating for a while now.
After a string of bad GMs I have a very low tolerance for "GM May I?" as the core mechanics of a class and like to have my non-"I hit it with my sword" options to have at least some mechanical support, even if it's just a bare-bones skill system.
Ideally I want the system to provide me with a mechanically supported toolkit for interacting with the setting with GM rulings only needed for which mechanic applies to a situation (ex. is covering your tracks through a forest a stealth or nature check?) and for rare outliers that the normal tools just can't cover.
My current PCs are an Ex-Sith crashed on a D&D world (because the SW5e fan supplement has done as much to reinforce the spine of core of 5e as is reasonably possible), a dhampir vampire hunter (in an urban fantasy setting), a "warlord" in a 3.5e campaign (built off the 3.5e Bard with a generous helping of official splats for skill tricks and very subtle spells that could just be luck or inspiration), a paladin-type with a divinely granted exoskeleton and flame whip, and an alien superhero whose battles against his dark counterpart in prehistory were the inspiration for the myths of Horus and Set.
I don't think many of those lend themselves to a rules light expression.
Quote from: estar on April 18, 2023, 08:37:04 AM
Or it could mean that you and the group needs organize your references differently. For example create a binder reference like this.
Your computer desktop is gonna give me nightmares...looks like a 90 year old grandma's.
RE: the Pathfinder video...how anyone can watch that stuff is beyond me. It's the equivalent to listening to yourself on a recording. That stated, I agree with Steven Mitchell and that "it depends." It's the reason I do NOT actually like playing Tunnels and Trolls, even though I like the game, simply because there isn't enough there to be engaging. The opposite reason I gave up on D&D 3.X...it's a great tactical boardgame, but interferes when you're trying to play an RPG. What's funny is how much bloat Pathfinder has to the point where I do not see how you'd even play that game and call it an RPG. Everything revolves around mechanics to such a degree that "roleplaying" boils down to rolling dice. For the dude in the video to claim the contrary just proves what was said and that "it depends." If those players really feel like they're roleplaying, good for them. I tried that style before and got burnt out after a few years.
There is a sweet spot. Too much crunch makes it hard to get into the system, and a certain level of crunch is only viable in a system that is a subsequent edition to a more beginner friendly game, so the additional crunch is manageable. This is of course the beginning of the end, unless you have a kind of two-pronged system. Like MERP as 'RoleMaster Lite' to RoleMaster proper (and RoleMaster of course started out as add-ons to AD&D, again having a prior more beginner friendly system to be based on).
With Pathfinder 2e it's likely the same situation. Those who played Pathfinder 1e probably don't find 2e too crunchy, while those who never played before do.
On the other end, if the system doesn't have enough crunch, it can be quite bland and doesn't have much staying power. I do find AD&D has the right level of crunch to give inspiration that doesn't come with a lot of other systems, while still being manageable (although when I started playing it was the only game around, so there wasn't the additional barrier I face now of wondering why I should learn a certain level of crunch when I already have a system I can play).
Realistic/detailed systems improve immersion by making things believable.
Crunchy systems hinder immersion by making you focus on the mechanics instead of the fiction.
It is very hard to create a system that is both simple and realistic, so a balance must be sough.
PF 2, however, is not exactly realistic nor simple, as far as I can tell. I don't see how it could improve RP, will try to watch the videos later.
For a given definition of roleplay, rolling dice, calculating modifiers, checking the character sheet, and digging through the rule book is not roleplaying. What heavy crunch does do is slow down action resolution and that ruins pacing. Bad pacing makes it harder to roleplay. Conversely, it is difficult to make decisions without enough constraints, and rules help to inform the player how the imaginary world works and what the character is generally capable off. A player cannot answer "what does your character do?" without a good idea of what the character can do and how it would effect the world. Ultimately, time spent crunching is time not spent roleplaying, so crunch becomes a hinderance once it has exceeded its utility to roleplaying.
It depends on the crunch, I find GURPS and BRP to flow well, Rolemaster doesn't. One of the reasons I like Rolemaster is that it's easier to teach to people who've played D&D and have D&D based assumptions that would get you killed right fast in GURPS or BRP but flowing isn't exactly what it does.
On the other hand rpgs often lack any information or rules for things wind up doing when they get off the tracks.
There's a certain amount of system mastery involved. But I find GURPS, Rolemaster, and BRP to be far less crunchy than Pathfinder or D&D 3 - 5e. Shocking I know, consistant methodical systems are so much harder for people than arbitrary ones where you have to look up player abilities for every action, every round of combat because there is no consistancy or structure.
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. The second is the presence or lack of a universal die roll mechanic.
For example, I ran a campaign of Fantasy Hero for a group mostly of newbs and it was a huge success. This is mostly because I knew the Hero System very well so there were never slow downs to check the rules. But also because in that game, every action is resolved with a 3d6 roll. So the players only had to specify their action and roll 3d6. This meant that they never even had to look at their character sheets or fumble with dice to do anything (except damage resolution).
Quote from: David Johansen on April 18, 2023, 10:30:27 AM
But I find GURPS, Rolemaster, and BRP to be far less crunchy than Pathfinder or D&D 3 - 5e. Shocking I know, consistant methodical systems are so much harder for people than arbitrary ones where you have to look up player abilities for every action, every round of combat because there is no consistancy or structure.
Not shocking to me, I feel the same. In GURPS, Rolemaster, and BRP you usually check a skill number in the character sheet, while in Pathfinder or D&D 3 - 5e you need to check or memorize multiple features.
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.
I agree with those who say that there's a sweet spot. With a lot of crunchy systems, players tend to end up playing the system and are deterred from thinking & acting in-character, which I'd say was necessary for roleplaying (as opposed to the feel of 'driving a machine'). Some kinds of crunch are worse than others, of course. But I think a complete absence of rules gives nothing to 'hang your hat on'; some rules facilitate immersion, especially when they map clearly to what's happening in the fictional world. Eg rolling dice to simulate an attack.
I notice that a lot of people here are talking about the kind of system they prefer, rather than the kind of system that best facilitates roleplaying. Those seem like different things to me.
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 01:47:15 AM
I agree with those who say that there's a sweet spot. With a lot of crunchy systems, players tend to end up playing the system and are deterred from thinking & acting in-character, which I'd say was necessary for roleplaying (as opposed to the feel of 'driving a machine'). Some kinds of crunch are worse than others, of course. But I think a complete absence of rules gives nothing to 'hang your hat on'; some rules facilitate immersion, especially when they map clearly to what's happening in the fictional world. Eg rolling dice to simulate an attack.
I notice that a lot of people here are talking about the kind of system they prefer, rather than the kind of system that best facilitates roleplaying. Those seem like different things to me.
I think this is about half of the truth.
It's true that personal preference plays a large part in this equation. GMs can naturally GM systems they like well, even if the complexity is very high. That said, some systems maintain crunch better than others, and you have to have a very strong personal preference for that factor to not wear you down eventually.
One of the key reasons I prefer Savage Worlds over the majority of OSR D20 games is because Savage Worlds is a step-dice system, which downshifts the math. The average D20 roll is 10, which means that when you start adding modifiers you have to start carrying digits when numbers go over 20 (or more realistically, you memorize the addition tables). However, step dice almost always roll 10 or lower. Even die explosions (which are technically multiplication, not addition) never put them above 20 by the RAW, and even completely unlocked die explosions rarely go that high. In D&D-like D20 games, you have to carry a digit for about a third of rolls. For Savage Worlds, you only ever have to carry a one when you have landed a critical hit.
Now, I understand this looks like a tiny optimization at first glance, but ask yourself how much you use the core mechanics of a game in each session? It varies, but the answer for a three hour session is usually between 50 and 200, so tiny optimizations actually have a quite pronounced effect across a whole session. Between this and the wound mechanics, I typically describe Savage Worlds as, "doing the D&D 3.5E gameplay better than 3.5 ever did." Which doesn't mean I think SW has no flaws, but that I can see that 3.5 is no longer a particularly practical game and SW has a similar net crunch level, at least with stacked modifiers.
It matters more whether the rules are good or bad.
What's a crunchy system? Is a system crunchier if it has more total rules? Is it crunchier if it has more frequent reference to rules? Those are not the same thing at all. I could have one rule, which is to flip a coin to resolve every situation. But we could apply it to every little thing. On the other end, each different thing could have its own separate rule, but allows you to do a lot more in between referencing the rules.
For example, "I draw my sword, charge in at the orc, and take a swipe." In D&D, you draw the sword without a roll, you charge in without a roll, when you take a swipe you have to follow two different rules. One rule for hitting, and if you hit, then you do a completely different type of roll for damage which cuts into hit points which is yet another rule.
In the CoinFlip Maximus RPG, you flip a coin to see if you can draw your sword without dropping it, then flip another coin as you charge in to make sure you don't trip and fall, then another coin flip to see if you hit, then a final coin flip to see if you kill the orc.
Which of those is crunchier?
I think if you have to roll a die or flip a coin or draw a card or consult a table or play rock-paper-scissors every 30 seconds, that's going to get in the way of role-playing.
On the flip side, if the rules are very, very specific--and I'm talking flip through the 1E DMG and see all the oddly specific rules--then that enhances role-playing. Because they are so specific, they do help spur on the imagination. And a side benefit of being specific is, they're not applicable to all or even most situations. So most of the time they're not going to impose any burden at all. And so these types of rules stack up unevenly in favor of being a benefit to roleplay.
The problem is the OP question is a generic question asking for generic answers, and the presumed tradeoff is one that is more imposed by generic rules, which has been the push and trend in RPG design for a long time, to make mechanics more unified with more generic all-encompassing rules.
Generic is the enemy of art.
In general I think certain systems, ironically those claiming to be narrative games in particular like L5R 5e and TOR 2e, tend to hinder rather than encourage true roleplaying as they often include a raft of mechanics specifically designed for roleplaying that actually amount to roll playing. As for pure crunch, for me that also inhibits roleplaying due to the sheer number of things to keep track of. As a current example, there's a Kickstarter for a new game called "Blood & Doom." It advertises a raft of weapon types, wound conditions and types, skills, feats, actions and reactions. See here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dicetalegames/blood-and-doom
And yet they also claim it offers "fast, cinematic action" for narrative-oriented gamers. After watching a deep dive video, this just seems to be a ridiculous claim, the usual thing you get with Kickstarters trying to be all things to all people. That's too bad because the premise is the kind of thing I like. But not with those rules.
But it is subjective and I think it depends on the group and their relationship to the game/setting. As a case in point, the best campaign I ever ran from a roleplaying perspective was a MERP game I ran in the 90s. I don't think many people would objectively say that system itself actively encourages roleplaying, but with people who are invested in the setting, it was great.
Quote from: Fheredin on April 19, 2023, 08:29:00 AM
It's true that personal preference plays a large part in this equation. GMs can naturally GM systems they like well, even if the complexity is very high. That said, some systems maintain crunch better than others, and you have to have a very strong personal preference for that factor to not wear you down eventually.
One of the key reasons I prefer Savage Worlds over the majority of OSR D20 games is because Savage Worlds is a step-dice system, which downshifts the math. The average D20 roll is 10, which means that when you start adding modifiers you have to start carrying digits when numbers go over 20 (or more realistically, you memorize the addition tables). However, step dice almost always roll 10 or lower. Even die explosions (which are technically multiplication, not addition) never put them above 20 by the RAW, and even completely unlocked die explosions rarely go that high. In D&D-like D20 games, you have to carry a digit for about a third of rolls. For Savage Worlds, you only ever have to carry a one when you have landed a critical hit.
Which is interesting, because I have the exact opposite reaction, assuming I understand your point correctly. Not that I disagree with the optimization of keeping the numbers small, but that step dice in the 6, 8, 10, 12 range is just too small for me most of the time. I have the same reaction to most games built on 2d6 mechanics. I find that there is so much packed into every small modifier (or step increase), that the relatively coarse granularity draws constant attention to the game model. But I get the idea, because while I also enjoy some percentage roll under systems, I'd nearly always prefer to do them in 5% increments for most purposes--and then you might as well go d20.
I even did a design (which I wasn't entirely happy with) that used d100 for fine grain of the baseline but did every modifier possible in 10% increments, with a handful in 5% increments. That is, I don't mind going from 63% to 53% on the fly, and it's not really any different than 65% to 55% in my experience, but I don't like, say, going from 63% to 57% on the fly, constantly. Or more to the point, don't like waiting on players to do it.
Which brings up another point, player load and GM load are not the same. I loved running Hero System for players. As mentioned earlier, it's a breeze to run at the table for even new players. Heck, probably have the players I've introduced to gaming have been handed a Hero pre-gen of some kind or another, and managed just fine. What I didn't like about it is the GM load--specifically prep work needed to get to that breeze at the table. There's a lot of discussion, rightly so, about offloading player work so that the players can focus on role-play. However, I also have the goal of off-loading some tasks onto the players so that I don't have to fool with them, and get on with creating the setting and content for them to role-play in. I don't mean in the Story game sense of players making decisions about the world, either, but rather managing as many parts of their characters as possible, and to a lesser extent any allied NPCs.
Quote from: Fheredin on April 19, 2023, 08:29:00 AMOne of the key reasons I prefer Savage Worlds over the majority of OSR D20 games is because Savage Worlds is a step-dice system, which downshifts the math. The average D20 roll is 10, which means that when you start adding modifiers you have to start carrying digits when numbers go over 20 (or more realistically, you memorize the addition tables). However, step dice almost always roll 10 or lower. Even die explosions (which are technically multiplication, not addition) never put them above 20 by the RAW
Could you point out this rule in the rulebook?
Re D20s, I love Dragonbane which (like Pendragon) is D20 lower-is-better, and you're always rolling vs your skill number, so no math. Difficulty is adjusted by the number of D20s you roll and whether you keep the high or low ones. It works so well I wonder why no one else thought of this years ago.
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Re D20s, I love Dragonbane which (like Pendragon) is D20 lower-is-better, and you're always rolling vs your skill number, so no math. Difficulty is adjusted by the number of D20s you roll and whether you keep the high or low ones. It works so well I wonder why no one else thought of this years ago.
Maybe because for it to work well, the system would need to be designed from the beginning with that mechanic in mind?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 12:50:27 PM
Maybe because for it to work well, the system would need to be designed from the beginning with that mechanic in mind?
It doesn't work with BRP d% because of confusion which % die goes with which. It ought to work fine in Pendragon and other BRP d20 systems though. And other roll under systems like the old GDW house system; which instead have a very clunky 'double/halve your skill' approach.
Quote from: finarvyn on April 18, 2023, 08:09:34 AM
My personal belief is that rules-heavy systems hinder creativity. I'm not sure what they do for or against role playing.
In my 5E games anytime my players want to do something they look at their skill list to see if they are good at it, and if not they often don't bother to try. Or only the one with the best number will try. When I ran OD&D there were no skill lists so nothing to consult, and the players spent more time dreaming up creative solutions.
I'm not sure how this translates into "good role playing" or not. In both cases the players are playing a role based on the information supplied, but in one case the players seem to be more creative doing it.
I agree.
Quote from: Grognard GM on April 19, 2023, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: Fheredin on April 19, 2023, 08:29:00 AMOne of the key reasons I prefer Savage Worlds over the majority of OSR D20 games is because Savage Worlds is a step-dice system, which downshifts the math. The average D20 roll is 10, which means that when you start adding modifiers you have to start carrying digits when numbers go over 20 (or more realistically, you memorize the addition tables). However, step dice almost always roll 10 or lower. Even die explosions (which are technically multiplication, not addition) never put them above 20 by the RAW
Could you point out this rule in the rulebook?
Upon consulting my rulebooks, I actually seem to be confusing a rule in an old "Test Flight" doc with the rules proper, so disregard. The old promo booklet prevents you from sending more than 1 raise from a Trait roll to a damage roll. I've never actually seen a GM use a TN over 8, so this rule capped trait roll effects to about 12. This is not true in my SWADE book. That said, the SWADE book is not terribly clear about damage rolls.
This actually explains a lot. I thought that open-ended explosions was just a houserule I inherited from my old group, but it's more accurate to say it was a half-baked premium upgrade in a free promo.
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 12:50:27 PM
Maybe because for it to work well, the system would need to be designed from the beginning with that mechanic in mind?
It doesn't work with BRP d% because of confusion which % die goes with which. It ought to work fine in Pendragon and other BRP d20 systems though. And other roll under systems like the old GDW house system; which instead have a very clunky 'double/halve your skill' approach.
Seriously? Do people out there still not own ten-sided dice with the tens (i.e. 10,20,30,40 etc.) on them? I can't fathom this being an actual issue.
Quote from: Persimmon on April 19, 2023, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 12:50:27 PM
Maybe because for it to work well, the system would need to be designed from the beginning with that mechanic in mind?
It doesn't work with BRP d% because of confusion which % die goes with which. It ought to work fine in Pendragon and other BRP d20 systems though. And other roll under systems like the old GDW house system; which instead have a very clunky 'double/halve your skill' approach.
Seriously? Do people out there still not own ten-sided dice with the tens (i.e. 10,20,30,40 etc.) on them? I can't fathom this being an actual issue.
If you're rolling several pairs of d10s, you don't know which 1s die goes with which 10s die unless there are sets in different colors or unless you roll in sequence. At least that's how I understood it. The system S'mon was describing sounded like Advantage/Disadvantage, where you roll a bunch of dice of the same type and drop high or low results.
Quote from: rytrasmi on April 19, 2023, 06:49:12 PM
If you're rolling several pairs of d10s, you don't know which 1s die goes with which 10s die unless there are sets in different colors or unless you roll in sequence. At least that's how I understood it. The system S'mon was describing sounded like Advantage/Disadvantage, where you roll a bunch of dice of the same type and drop high or low results.
Yup. Rolling two or three d00 and two or three d10 you can easily mix up which d00 goes with which d10. Not a problem with two or three d20s.
Quote from: rytrasmi on April 19, 2023, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on April 19, 2023, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 12:50:27 PM
Maybe because for it to work well, the system would need to be designed from the beginning with that mechanic in mind?
It doesn't work with BRP d% because of confusion which % die goes with which. It ought to work fine in Pendragon and other BRP d20 systems though. And other roll under systems like the old GDW house system; which instead have a very clunky 'double/halve your skill' approach.
Seriously? Do people out there still not own ten-sided dice with the tens (i.e. 10,20,30,40 etc.) on them? I can't fathom this being an actual issue.
If you're rolling several pairs of d10s, you don't know which 1s die goes with which 10s die unless there are sets in different colors or unless you roll in sequence. At least that's how I understood it. The system S'mon was describing sounded like Advantage/Disadvantage, where you roll a bunch of dice of the same type and drop high or low results.
Okay; that makes a bit more sense, but again, I probably have 10 sets of color matched dice where one is the tens and the other is the ones. These aren't exactly hard to find these days.
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 01:30:15 PM
It doesn't work with BRP d% because of confusion which % die goes with which. It ought to work fine in Pendragon and other BRP d20 systems though. And other roll under systems like the old GDW house system; which instead have a very clunky 'double/halve your skill' approach.
...
Quote from: Persimmon on April 19, 2023, 06:58:35 PM
Okay; that makes a bit more sense, but again, I probably have 10 sets of color matched dice where one is the tens and the other is the ones. These aren't exactly hard to find these days.
Yeah. As a Call of Cthulhu GM, I'd have several color-matched d00/d10 pairs so I could make multiple rolls at a time. So I wouldn't say it doesn't work, but it does make the dice requirements harder.
You guys clearly have better dice discipline than me. ;D
I've found the system doesn't impact role-playing as much as the players. In my experience having a detailed "crunchy" system has helped players really get into the character's skills and visualize it. But if the players aren't role-players to begin with the system won't make a difference. We're embarking on a BRP campaign, they came from 5E. I've got games ready for Harn and Chivalry & Sorcery and both games were helpful for the pc's to understand how something is different and how their pc figured in. Never played Pathfinder or the 3.5-4 DnD.
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2023, 09:19:26 AM
After a string of bad GMs I have a very low tolerance for "GM May I?" as the core mechanics of a class and like to have my non-"I hit it with my sword" options to have at least some mechanical support, even if it's just a bare-bones skill system.
The common denominator in all of your problems is always... you.
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2023, 09:19:26 AM
My current PCs are an Ex-Sith crashed on a D&D world (because the SW5e fan supplement has done as much to reinforce the spine of core of 5e as is reasonably possible), a dhampir vampire hunter (in an urban fantasy setting), a "warlord" in a 3.5e campaign (built off the 3.5e Bard with a generous helping of official splats for skill tricks and very subtle spells that could just be luck or inspiration), a paladin-type with a divinely granted exoskeleton and flame whip, and an alien superhero whose battles against his dark counterpart in prehistory were the inspiration for the myths of Horus and Set.
I don't think many of those lend themselves to a rules light expression.
While not a fan of "rules light" games myself, those characters are a thousand times easier to create in a rules light system than in a crunchier system. Unless there is direct mechanical support within the crunch for a character in a crunchy system, the actuality of the character conflicts with the mental image of the capabilities of the character. I.e., if I want a character who can drain opponents' mental resolve while using that to power an ability to grow techno-magical constructs on my body based on the results of the drain, a high crunch system would require me to pick a set of mechanics that simulate mental resolve and that had specific rules designed to replicate point-based constructs with varying abilities hard-coded into the rules. A rules-light game will be far more amenable to just winging it, with abilities and results added on the fly.
0)
So, if you define "roleplaying" a character as the results of a character's task resolution (which I don't), crunchier systems tend to get in the way of widely varied character concepts, not support them...
My answer to the question is this:
I like rules that really serve the game/setting.
I only have a problem with rules that are too crunchy/complicated if the rules cause me to have to stop and look something up. The stops the game, slows momentum and really does damage to the game.
A game cause be crunchy as long as it doesn't interfere in game play (My 2 cents at least)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2023, 02:21:35 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2023, 09:19:26 AM
After a string of bad GMs I have a very low tolerance for "GM May I?" as the core mechanics of a class and like to have my non-"I hit it with my sword" options to have at least some mechanical support, even if it's just a bare-bones skill system.
The common denominator in all of your problems is always... you.
And?
No. Seriously.
I like and dislike certain things due to my past experiences. This isn't a discussion where there is a right and wrong answer. It's all about personal preferences based on our past experiences.
You enjoy rules-lite systems due to your personal preferences and past experiences with it. Your preference for playing lets pretend where all the load of decision making is on the GM is just that, your preference.
Others may share that preference. Others may share mine.
So what exactly is your point?
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 21, 2023, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2023, 02:21:35 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2023, 09:19:26 AM
After a string of bad GMs I have a very low tolerance for "GM May I?" as the core mechanics of a class and like to have my non-"I hit it with my sword" options to have at least some mechanical support, even if it's just a bare-bones skill system.
The common denominator in all of your problems is always... you.
And?
No. Seriously.
I like and dislike certain things due to my past experiences. This isn't a discussion where there is a right and wrong answer. It's all about personal preferences based on our past experiences.
You enjoy rules-lite systems due to your personal preferences and past experiences with it. Your preference for playing lets pretend where all the load of decision making is on the GM is just that, your preference.
Others may share that preference. Others may share mine.
So what exactly is your point?
My point is that your bias is so great, that you can't even read correctly anymore. My literal next sentence was that I wasn't a fan of rules light games. Also, that your stated preference for crunch as a method of insuring build possibilities is not only flawed conceptually, but probably directly counterproductive. So, perhaps you are actually exacerbating the problem you are professing to solve. You know, the whole rest of the post you apparently didn't read...
I think you need a system with enough crunch you can bite into it, but not so much you you can choke on it.
Many systems are so crunchy you're left wondering what the fuck were they thinking when the came up with this shit because with a crunchy system when the rule isn't good you feel it.
Others are so soft you might as well freeform.
There's a reason I hate Powered by the Apocalypse
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2023, 10:49:07 PMMy point is that your bias is so great, that you can't even read correctly anymore.
Chris is biased (which isn't even a neutral and fair description, opinionated is more like it), but if you start off with:
"Look man, have you considered your an asshole?", then don't be surprised when somebody doesn't really want to engage with the rest.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 22, 2023, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2023, 10:49:07 PMMy point is that your bias is so great, that you can't even read correctly anymore.
Chris is biased (which isn't even a neutral and fair description, opinionated is more like it), but if you start off with:
"Look man, have you considered your an asshole?", then don't be surprised when somebody doesn't really want to engage with the rest.
This is actually disconnected from either poster, but a LOT of problems in the modern West come from people being protected from being called an asshole. I mean there are a metric ton of assholes running around, shielded by laws and social media censorship.
I know, "more flies with honey," but sometimes asking an asshole if they've considered they may be an asshole, is doing the Lord's work.
Quote from: Grognard GM on April 22, 2023, 12:58:31 PMAsking an asshole if they've considered they may be an asshole, is doing the Lord's work.
Unless its a thing you in specific feel protective towards. Then it's not the time or place. Then the people belittling you or your beliefs are just unenlightened morons.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 22, 2023, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on April 22, 2023, 12:58:31 PMAsking an asshole if they've considered they may be an asshole, is doing the Lord's work.
Unless its a thing you in specific feel protective towards. Then it's not the time or place. Then the people belittling you or your beliefs are just unenlightened morons.
I can be upset at being called an asshole, and feel it's unfair, but how does that disprove some people needing to be called out?
Feels over free speech has wrecked the West.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 22, 2023, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2023, 10:49:07 PMMy point is that your bias is so great, that you can't even read correctly anymore.
Chris is biased (which isn't even a neutral and fair description, opinionated is more like it), but if you start off with:
"Look man, have you considered your an asshole?", then don't be surprised when somebody doesn't really want to engage with the rest.
The irony of you, of all posters, posting this is palpable. Pot meet kettle...
QuoteYup. Rolling two or three d00 and two or three d10 you can easily mix up which d00 goes with which d10. Not a problem with two or three d20s.
As someone who was once deliberating upon systems with pool of D100/D20s (although in more success level than advantage/disadvantage fashion) I'd say that simplest solution I've got for D100 is - simply roll adequate number of D10. And then only for those that fall on perfect number on edge, check unity numbers. That can even add some edge, as it shows very very close roll.
One additional thought on crunch. I generally requires a GM who is organized to work well. Like, with Rolemaster, you want the stats of the monsters on your GM control sheet and the necessary attack and critical tables set out rather than flipping through the book.
I think I have the same answer here that I do with virtually any question regarding crunchy games. If all the players are invested in learning/knowing the system, then crunch doesn't hinder roleplaying. If even one player can't grok it, or refuses to learn it, then it can easily hinder efforts to roleplay for at least some participants at the table as they continuously have to break character to assist someone else with actual gameplay mechanics.
Enable.
Absolutely, unequivocally, enable.
Humans are pretty good at getting creative with the tools at their disposal. The ability to make a new tool is pretty rare. Most attempts to create new tools fail spectacularly.
In the context of roleplaying, this means that when players have all of the options they have decision paralysis and when they do finally come up with an idea, it's usually a dumb idea. However, when you define what their characters are good and bad at with game mechanics and provide a system for task resolution, they get ideas about what to do. This follows all the way down to character creation, and explains why class-based systems dominate despite repeated protests that classless systems are clearly superior.
For me, crunchy rules stymie roleplaying as they just get in the way of the narrative.
Quote from: rkhigdon on June 01, 2023, 11:04:16 AM
I think I have the same answer here that I do with virtually any question regarding crunchy games. If all the players are invested in learning/knowing the system, then crunch doesn't hinder roleplaying. If even one player can't grok it, or refuses to learn it, then it can easily hinder efforts to roleplay for at least some participants at the table as they continuously have to break character to assist someone else with actual gameplay mechanics.
This actually strikes me as meaning that groups are perfectly capable of crunchy games, but that the game designer should design them so the GM can easily stagger in the crunchier mechanics rather than relying on them always operating at the maximum crunch value. In so many words, you need to reduce the game and run the party through a tutorial.
Quote from: Fheredin on June 01, 2023, 09:02:18 PM
Quote from: rkhigdon on June 01, 2023, 11:04:16 AM
I think I have the same answer here that I do with virtually any question regarding crunchy games. If all the players are invested in learning/knowing the system, then crunch doesn't hinder roleplaying. If even one player can't grok it, or refuses to learn it, then it can easily hinder efforts to roleplay for at least some participants at the table as they continuously have to break character to assist someone else with actual gameplay mechanics.
This actually strikes me as meaning that groups are perfectly capable of crunchy games, but that the game designer should design them so the GM can easily stagger in the crunchier mechanics rather than relying on them always operating at the maximum crunch value. In so many words, you need to reduce the game and run the party through a tutorial.
That's certainly not what I was trying to say, though I suppose ramping up the complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing.
When I was younger in the early days of RPGs (when we didn't have cell phones, tablets, paid for long distance, etc) we played a multi-year campaign of Chivalry & Sorcery. Though it was a pretty complex game, we all knew the rules extremely well and there was rarely a stoppage in play to figure out how something worked. This made it extremely easy to roleplay as most of the impediments to it were eliminated.
Fast forward to today, and I'm playing in a Tiny Dungeons campaign which should supposedly promote good roleplay due to the simplicity of the system. The thing is, two of the players can't be bothered to learn even the basics of how to play which always leaves the rest of us to tell them what to roll or how to proceed, so RP is almost non-existent. It's all very mechanical and stale.
Now I understand things are different today, and there are tons of things to occupy people's time so sitting around trying to learn a game probably isn't at the top of everybody's list. But for god's sake, it's amazing to me that people want to participate in the hobby without making any sort of effort at all.
Quote from: rkhigdon on June 01, 2023, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on June 01, 2023, 09:02:18 PM
Quote from: rkhigdon on June 01, 2023, 11:04:16 AM
I think I have the same answer here that I do with virtually any question regarding crunchy games. If all the players are invested in learning/knowing the system, then crunch doesn't hinder roleplaying. If even one player can't grok it, or refuses to learn it, then it can easily hinder efforts to roleplay for at least some participants at the table as they continuously have to break character to assist someone else with actual gameplay mechanics.
This actually strikes me as meaning that groups are perfectly capable of crunchy games, but that the game designer should design them so the GM can easily stagger in the crunchier mechanics rather than relying on them always operating at the maximum crunch value. In so many words, you need to reduce the game and run the party through a tutorial.
That's certainly not what I was trying to say, though I suppose ramping up the complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing.
When I was younger in the early days of RPGs (when we didn't have cell phones, tablets, paid for long distance, etc) we played a multi-year campaign of Chivalry & Sorcery. Though it was a pretty complex game, we all knew the rules extremely well and there was rarely a stoppage in play to figure out how something worked. This made it extremely easy to roleplay as most of the impediments to it were eliminated.
Fast forward to today, and I'm playing in a Tiny Dungeons campaign which should supposedly promote good roleplay due to the simplicity of the system. The thing is, two of the players can't be bothered to learn even the basics of how to play which always leaves the rest of us to tell them what to roll or how to proceed, so RP is almost non-existent. It's all very mechanical and stale.
Now I understand things are different today, and there are tons of things to occupy people's time so sitting around trying to learn a game probably isn't at the top of everybody's list. But for god's sake, it's amazing to me that people want to participate in the hobby without making any sort of effort at all.
It helps if the GM only calls for rolls when needed. You have Drive Grav-Car 3. You don't need to roll to start, park, or do normal driving. We've had 5 hours Traveller sessions where I only rolled because I elected to, so I could apply an XP to that skill for that session. (I do like to roll a little more often. But it was a session featuring other skills, and I was having fun riding along and role-playing.)
I agree with those who have said it heavily depends on the players/group involved. In my grognard group of 50-something lifetime gamers, a 5e game which I believe is crunchier but not heavy, half the players just do not have the time or the consistent playing history to truly learn and absorb the rules. Every bit of crunch has to be looked up, consulted, and questioned. I feel like half the guys are playing their character sheets rather than their characters. I had this belief confirmed when we did a couple of one-shots using Barbarians of Lemuria playing some old AD&D modules and everything burst open with creativity and roleplaying.
If you have a group that is super familiar with the system, however, I agree that crunchiness can add depth. But that type of group is not all that common, or is complicated by having an eclectic group that wants to play different genres even if the players themselves are sophisticated as players overall. Switching among superheroes, fantasy, modern pulp, etc., is fun but it does inevitably reduce familiarity with any one system.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on June 01, 2023, 12:47:43 PM
For me, crunchy rules stymie roleplaying as they just get in the way of the narrative.
Curious have you ever learned one well enough so it is second nature to use?
I have encountered crunchy rule systems that were presented in such a way that it was impossible to use them without referring back to a rulebook. But I played others where that wasn't the case, like GURPS or Harnmaster. Hence my question.
Quote from: S'mon on April 19, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Re D20s, I love Dragonbane which (like Pendragon) is D20 lower-is-better, and you're always rolling vs your skill number, so no math. Difficulty is adjusted by the number of D20s you roll and whether you keep the high or low ones. It works so well I wonder why no one else thought of this years ago.
S' mon,
Tell us more about Dragonbane. I'm guessing:
Sum situational bonuses and penalties (dark -1, slippery -1, high ground +1 = DF -1)
Roll d20 pool = DF. Negative means keep worst, positive means keep best
PC "skill" ranges 1 to 20 (Maybe atts 1 to 10, plus skills 1 to 10)
Success if roll <= "skill"
Quote from: Aglondir on June 02, 2023, 05:51:26 PM
S' mon,
Tell us more about Dragonbane. I'm guessing:
Sum situational bonuses and penalties (dark -1, slippery -1, high ground +1 = DF -1)
Roll d20 pool = DF. Negative means keep worst, positive means keep best
PC "skill" ranges 1 to 20 (Maybe atts 1 to 10, plus skills 1 to 10)
Success if roll <= "skill"
No static bonuses/penalties, everything is done with multiple d20s vs skill (or attribute) target number, success if roll <= "skill". 'Banes' mean keep worst roll, 'boons' mean keep best roll.
Skill ranges from 3 to 18. Attributes range 3 to 18.
ATTRIBUTE: BASE CHANCE (x2 if trained)
1–5 3
6–8 4
9–12 5
13–15 6
16–18 7
So a starting PC might have a skill as low as 3 or as high as 7x2=14.
There's always that excluded middle in such discussions, naturally. But suffice it to say a good example on how to resolve a disputable situation is helpful. Sometimes I may even want or need higher granularity, or even whiz-bang widgets.
However on average I found higher crunch detracted from my gaming experiences. Sometimes more is just more.
Quote from: S'mon on June 02, 2023, 06:34:42 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on June 02, 2023, 05:51:26 PM
S' mon,
Tell us more about Dragonbane. I'm guessing:
Sum situational bonuses and penalties (dark -1, slippery -1, high ground +1 = DF -1)
Roll d20 pool = DF. Negative means keep worst, positive means keep best
PC "skill" ranges 1 to 20 (Maybe atts 1 to 10, plus skills 1 to 10)
Success if roll <= "skill"
No static bonuses/penalties, everything is done with multiple d20s vs skill (or attribute) target number, success if roll <= "skill". 'Banes' mean keep worst roll, 'boons' mean keep best roll.
Skill ranges from 3 to 18. Attributes range 3 to 18.
ATTRIBUTE: BASE CHANCE (x2 if trained)
1–5 3
6–8 4
9–12 5
13–15 6
16–18 7
So a starting PC might have a skill as low as 3 or as high as 7x2=14.
How do Atts work? Do they add to skills?
Quote from: Aglondir on June 02, 2023, 10:10:55 PM
>>ATTRIBUTE: BASE CHANCE (x2 if trained)
1–5 3
6–8 4
9–12 5
13–15 6
16–18 7
So a starting PC might have a skill as low as 3 or as high as 7x2=14.<<
How do Atts work? Do they add to skills?
Attributes determine your base roll-under chance on a skill check as per the table above. So, Spot Hidden is an INT skill. If you have INT 12, your base chance is 5 or less on d20. If you are trained in Spot Hidden, your base chance is 5x2=10 or less on d20.
The free Quickstart - https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/409397/Dragonbane-Quickstart?
My Dragonbane page, includes lots of rules http://simonyrpgs.blogspot.com/2023/02/dragonbane-starter-rules.html