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