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.