TheRPGSite

With 6 year old players, I'd DM it at 1 or 2.

I'd be fine playing at 3 to 4.  No Feats, No MC, etc.

I'd consider Pathfinder to be toward the upper end of the scale I'm referring to, btw.

Quote from: Razor 007;1078089With 6 year old players, I'd DM it at 1 or 2.

I'd be fine playing at 3 to 4.

I'd consider Pathfinder to be toward the upper end of the scale I'm referring to, btw.

This is about as vague as the common pain scales, especially in the 3-7 range. What one person consider an "average complexity" is going to vary more than answers that fall high or low.

What is my 5 or 6 is likely equivalent to most others 8 to 10's. So short version? I don't know.

But I do like crunch. As long as it's good crunch and doesn't get in my way or slow the table down, that is.

I need two data points for this: where do you see D&D 3E and 5E?

5e D&D seems to hit the sweet spot for me - with Feats, without Multiclassing would be the bullseye. That's probably about a 5 or 6 in terms of games on the market?

Quote from: S'mon;10780985e D&D seems to hit the sweet spot for me - with Feats, without Multiclassing would be the bullseye. That's probably about a 5 or 6 in terms of games on the market?

Feats and Multiclassing in D&D 5th Edition are optional systems you don't have to use. So if you don't use them, those levels of added complexity disappear. And at the default for 5th Edition D&D, they aren't used.

For me these days, I truly dont' know where I would fit on the scale. But I tend to believe that simpler is better.

But the game I play in on saturdays? More complicated than Rolemaster. But I'm willing to put up with it because the actual campaign is fun. I'm willing to stomach a lot for a good game.

But I'm not willing to GM at this point anything more complex than Icons.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078097I need two data points for this: where do you see D&D 3E and 5E?

??????.......

PF1 9-10
D&D 3.5 8-9
3.0 7-8
5E 5-7
2nd AD&D 5-6
1st AD&D 6-7
OD&D 4

Rough Estimates

Quote from: Razor 007;1078104Rough Estimates

Well, I'd downgrade all your ratings by 1 to leave more room for complexer games than PF1. However, under your metric, I'm currently aiming at a 7 with my game. But, as a scenario or mini-campaign, I can play anything from rather rules-light Trail of Cthulhu to heavy stuff like Rolemaster or Shadowrun. I like variety, the full spectrum of the hobby.

For a long campaign, nothing under 5 please though. 5E is the lightest I would want for that, preferably a bit heavier.
(But I am a simulationist and I guess we don't mind complexity as much.)

Quote from: Razor 007;1078104??????.......

PF1 9-10
D&D 3.5 8-9
3.0 7-8
5E 5-7
2nd AD&D 5-6
1st AD&D 6-7
OD&D 4

Rough Estimates

This is bullshit.

Here's a far improved and not at all incredibly biased one:

10 = HERO
9 = Eclipse Phase, Shadowrun 5e
8 = GURPS, SLA Industries, Runequest
7 = WHRPG, COC, CP2020, Traveller
6 = D&D 3.5e, Pathfinder 1e, TWRPG
5 = Storytelling/NWOD, Savage Worlds, EOTE
4 = D&D 5e, SOTDL, LOFTP = 4
3 = S.I.T.R.E.P

*wink*

*At below 3, games enter Storygame-ville by default and subsequently aren't indicative of a traditional understanding of system complexity measurement.

**And of course, more shameless plugging of my own game, mwahahaha.

COC = 7; 3.PF = 6.... what did he mean by this? :D

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078114COC = 7; 3.PF = 6.... what did he mean by this? :D

Its quite easy to fuck-up a COC character compared to PF which has a relatively straight-forward chargen critical path. More GM negotiation required as well as stat hedging.

My complexity limit is fairly high.  I'd possibly go for anything short of Phoenix Command or the like.  The 10s are out, but below that is fair game.  On the bottom end of the scale, I usually want at least some room for character differentiation that is more than cosmetic, and also some character advancement.  I don't particularly enjoy short games.  So maybe above 2 or 3.  

However, not all complexity is created equal.  My patience with complexity for complexity sake has always been almost non-existent, and over the last 15 years or so, my patience for "accounting" complexity has rapidly hit a similar lack of tolerance.

For example, I consider Hero, GURPs, and D&D 3.*/PF to be all roughly equally complex.  (They've all got spots where they vary, but as a whole, about the same.)  D&D 3.*/PF have more poorly conceived complexity, that leads directly to more "accounting" complexity.  Hero and GURPs are still pretty complex, but they accomplish more with their "complexity budget".  So if I want a game that complex, I'd always pick Hero or GURPs over any of those D&D variants.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1078116For example, I consider Hero, GURPs, and D&D 3.*/PF to be all roughly equally complex.  (They've all got spots where they vary, but as a whole, about the same.)  D&D 3.*/PF have more poorly conceived complexity, that leads directly to more "accounting" complexity.  Hero and GURPs are still pretty complex, but they accomplish more with their "complexity budget".  So if I want a game that complex, I'd always pick Hero or GURPs over any of those D&D variants.

I'll concede that D&D 3.x/PF has the same ballpark complexity to MASTER as Hero & GURPs (though I still don't think they're as high), but HERO & GURPs are nearly all up-front complexity. You need to learn nearly the entirety of the system to be able to really play properly.

I definitely agree that 3.x/PF are too complex in unnecessary ways (especially past level 6-8ish) - but it's nearly all hidden so that you don't actually need to know it to play. This is because of classes & leveling. A fighter only really needs to know how a fighter works, and a low level wizard doesn't need to understand polymorph spellcasting. etc. Even the GM only has to have a passing understanding unless they're running them - and again - at single digit levels nothing gets too bad.

Hero & GURPs have all of their rules meshed together - which can be cool in some ways - but it does mean that you need to understand the bulk of their complexity before you can play at all.

Lol no way CoC is more crunchy than PF/D&D3.

5 or 6. Nothing else.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1078113This is bullshit.

Here's a far improved and not at all incredibly biased one:
...

I like this list better.

To answer the OP; I want medium complexity. 1 is too light and 10 is too crunchy. Looking at the new SWADE (Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and it seems like a good compromise. I agree it's about a 4 - 5. Complexity is not just character gen/options for me but also points-of-handling, modifiers, procedures, etc. Frankly GURPS is harder to run with a bunch of the cool dials turned up than say Rolemaster (yes I've played both). By "harder" I mean there's more to keep track of.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1078117Hero & GURPs have all of their rules meshed together - which can be cool in some ways - but it does mean that you need to understand the bulk of their complexity before you can play at all.

That's true.  Having mastered all three, it is no longer an issue for me.  Moreover, I don't mind spending time upfront, if it pays off in the long run, which Hero and GURPs do.  

Now admittedly, that's still an issue when bringing in new players.  But with new players, I don't want to start with a game that complex, period.

I'd say I'm probably 7.5. Even with feats enabled 5e is too light on the customization options for me. Conversely, while I can do it, 3.5e is a bit too crunchy for my tastes.

The system I'm writing is obviously at my sweet spot. Pick your species and a species trait (mine are pretty broad; humans includes elven, dwarven, avatar and orcish bloodlines rather than having a bunch of half-X as distinct species). Pick a class, one special attack action and one specialization. Pick a background, three skills and two utilities from it. Assign your ability scores, record derived traits, get your starting equipment and you're good to go. At each level you make one choice about how you improve.

That feels like the right level of character complexity to me.

In terms of in-play options, 2-4 regular choices for each of your actions feels about right (rarely employed/edge-case actions don't count for that list). Heroic-tier 4E had about the right number of options for me... paragon+ you started to get to "option paralysis" stage pretty quickly, especially if you only chose standard options for everything and a bunch of feats that threw a bunch of conditional bonuses on top.

I too think crunch ratings are subjective. Particularly when one is used to a type of game. For me, TFT is very low crunch, and GURPS is medium-crunch, but games I'm not familiar with can look very crunchy.

My scale of how crunchy things are is a bit like:

10 - some ridiculous homebrew experiments I've done with impulse movement, momentum, etc
9 - Phoenix Command, Attack Vector: Tactical
8 -
7 - GURPS 4e character creation options, GURPS as I play it with various house rules, GURPS Technical Grappling
6 - GURPS 3e
5 - GURPS 1e/2e
4 - GURPS Man To Man, Orcslayer
3 - TFT
2 -
1 - Microscope

I can deal with up to about level 7, and am willing to do so if and only if I think it's worth it to do so.

But I don't want crunch for crunch's sake. I only want crunch that serves a purpose I care about. Like, yes, I do want to track specific wounds suffered by important characters, because it's interesting to me, it's often very relevant to whether they succeed or die and what happens to them, and I like games that are about such details and have satisfying mechanics about them. I'm also so used to doing it, that it doesn't feel very crunchy to me to do so. I only developed a taste for doing that after years of play.

Oh, and I also tend to insulate most players from most of the crunch I do as GM. I can run crunch-7 GURPS without the players needing to know anything about GURPS, by translating everything into English.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;107811310 = HERO
9 = Eclipse Phase, Shadowrun 5e
8 = GURPS, SLA Industries, Runequest
7 = WHRPG, COC, CP2020, Traveller
6 = D&D 3.5e, Pathfinder 1e, TWRPG
5 = Storytelling/NWOD, Savage Worlds, EOTE
4 = D&D 5e, SOTDL, LOFTP = 4
3 = S.I.T.R.E.P

Depends if I am playing or GM-ing. I love playing Hero, but there's no way I'd GM it.

7 for Traveller? I guess it depends on the version. I'd put MongTrav at a 4 (w/o starship building or combat.)

Using the  PrometheanVigil standard, I would put myself at a 7.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1078113This is bullshit.

Here's a far improved and not at all incredibly biased one:

10 = HERO
9 = Eclipse Phase, Shadowrun 5e
8 = GURPS, SLA Industries, Runequest
7 = WHRPG, COC, CP2020, Traveller
6 = D&D 3.5e, Pathfinder 1e, TWRPG
5 = Storytelling/NWOD, Savage Worlds, EOTE
4 = D&D 5e, SOTDL, LOFTP = 4
3 = S.I.T.R.E.P

*wink*

*At below 3, games enter Storygame-ville by default and subsequently aren't indicative of a traditional understanding of system complexity measurement.

**And of course, more shameless plugging of my own game, mwahahaha.

No, it's Not Bullshit.  I only attempted to rank rule sets imho, because another poster asked me to....

Your list is equally Bullshit, because this whole thing is Subjective.

However, I do confess to being a D&D genre isolationist.

I don't want to play anything more crunchy than D&D 5E.  Pathfinder exceeds my crunch limit.

Well GURPS is my favorite system, with Classic Unisystem coming in 2nd (though i haven't played that in years). So I'd say around 5 or 6.

Any list that has Hero has the most crunchy end of the scale is messed up before it gets started.  It indicates a lack of knowledge of the crunchier end of the spectrum.  (My ability to make a list that did justice to the lower end of the scale would be similarly ill-conceived.)

For prep: It depends. Almost anything if the result is cost-balanced with great flexibility. Not interested in "realism" or "simulation" outside of a computer game.

For game play: Very low. Our home brew doesn't even use addition or subtraction for game rolls or distinguish between types of armor (except in role-play terms). Every roll is an opposed polyhedral die roll with the players trying to meet or beat the GMs roll.

For me the crunch has to be justified. Pathfinder is a tad more crunchy than Starfinder or the last PF2e draft, but the latter two games have majority boring crunch.

There was a time in my life that HERO 4th was my favorite system. I'd unabashedly answer polls with questions like 'if you were trapped on a island with only one game system, what would it be?" with HERO, smug in my assertion that HERO could run any kind of game. I'm pretty much done with games of that level of complexity, now.

These days, I like BRP (the Call of Cthulhu system, for those of you who don't prefer to just have acronyms thrown around) for gaming where the characters are supposed to be 'real people'. I haven't quite landed on a system that's my preference for action movie or even superhero movie level gaming.

I'm using Cypher for a superhuman level game now, and Stars Without Number for a sci fi game that's action movie level; and both have some bits that are crunchier than my group is apparently comfortable with. While it makes me roll my eyes as I say it, levelling up in Stars Without Number has been a bit like herding cats. Yes - roll your hit points, calculate your base attack bonus, spend your skill points was way more problem than it should have been. Though, that being said, I'm really liking how Stars Without Number runs, and our game is around 5th, nearly 6th level. It's handling 'action movie' kind of play pretty darn well.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1078172Any list that has Hero has the most crunchy end of the scale is messed up before it gets started.  It indicates a lack of knowledge of the crunchier end of the spectrum.  (My ability to make a list that did justice to the lower end of the scale would be similarly ill-conceived.)

The HERO system itself is pretty easy after you make characters, so this whole scale doesn't make a lot of sense to me. D&D 3.X and Pathfinder are pretty complex during character generation AND at high levels when you have a ton of feats. Amber is about as minimalist as you can get from a character generation view, but is highly complex in actual play (which is a really good thing). I'd go so far as to say the sort of complexity exhibited by Amber makes the game better, but the reliance on mechanics playing D&D 3.X makes the game worse.

So is this specifically about published mechanics, or the complexity of the game in play? Those are two totally different concepts. If it's the first one, I'll admit I really love playing stuff like Starfleet Battles and Advanced Squad Leader; ridiculously complex boardgames are enjoyable to me. In a roleplaying game, I've had fun playing Rolemaster, HERO, GURPS, and D&D 3.X, but I don't think I'll ever play those again anytime soon. I started running a new AD&D 1st edition game a couple weeks ago, and after a few sessions it was obvious I was glossing over a lot of the sub-systems and really running it more like B/X. So that is probably my sweet spot for published mechanics. I played D&D 5th for several years, and noticed I didn't really pay attention as much as I should have because half the game was concerned with the mechanics and not actual play. When I'm more worried about flipping through ruiebooks than focusing on the game, an rpg ceases to be interesting. I suppose there's a level of system mastery that should be expected during play, but the older I get the less bullshit I want to worry about. Trying to explain that to rules-lawyers who spend twenty minutes figuring out the optimal way to do some task and get a +1 bonus or advantage is frustrating and a waste of time.

Quote from: Tod13;1078175For prep: It depends. Almost anything if the result is cost-balanced with great flexibility. Not interested in "realism" or "simulation" outside of a computer game.

For game play: Very low. Our home brew doesn't even use addition or subtraction for game rolls or distinguish between types of armor (except in role-play terms). Every roll is an opposed polyhedral die roll with the players trying to meet or beat the GMs roll.

Ah.....  Simplicity!!!

Quote from: Itachi;1078119Lol no way CoC is more crunchy than PF/D&D3.

Neither is Warhammer (although I am not familiar with the current edition, 2E was my last experience with it)

Probably 3-6 for me. Or to put it another way, as complex as it needs to be to model the game/setting and provide the experience I am looking for, not one bit more.

On the following scale, I like to be in the 6-7 range.

9 -      WFRPG 4e, Shadowrun 2e, Inquisitor
8 -      DnD 3.5
7 -      Dnd 5e with feats, MCing, etc
6 -      Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe
<=5    BX, Lotfp

3 or 4 on Razor's scale.

These days it's 5 and lower for me (Fate, PbtA, Cortex, etc).

Probably 4 or 5. Somewhere between B/X and 5e.

Makes me wonder...

One way to evaluate HOW COMPLEX each system is: The Magical Number Seven.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html

Now, this isn't an actual scale, but helps you think in terms of "how many classes", "how many skills", etc.

So, better than number of pages, pick the number of "bits".

Another thing to consider is the number of unique options. A game with 6 abilities and no feats might generate one thousand different characters, but a game with only 50 feats, each distinct, is probably more complex.

Do unique options increase complexity? I dunno. Is 5e an extremely complex games because it has 500 spells (or a lot fewer, if only the PHB is allowed)?

What about options that are only there for "color"? For example, Carcosa has two classes and a dozen "races", but the races are really similar...

One thing I really dislike is games that are very complex at character creation. So, a level 1 character has to make 12 distinct choices, each with half a dozen possibilites... Nope, never going to play PF 2.

Also, remember one-page RPGs. The low end of the scale should be reserved for those.

Hey y'all, new poster here.  I play mostly C&C, but am an old 1E player as well.  I'm somewhere in the middle.  3E and Pathfinder are too crunchy.  Just started playing in a 5E game, so it's too soon for me to comment on that one yet.  I'll get to it though.

Eric makes a good point about level of complexity in terms of numbers of bits.

I've also remarked in several cases about problems with "Option Paralysis" in some systems and that the ideal seems to be about 2-4 options at a time.

As a result in my own system I've tried to create "nests" in my system where you only have to choose between 2-4 things at a time. If something really needs more options than that, you split the options up into groups (say "spellcasting classes" and "warrior classes") so they're only choosing between 2-4 things at each stage (so instead of picking from 14 classes, first you choose between spellcaster or warrior; which provides general benefit; and then you pick from the classes exclusive to that group; which provide more specific benefits).

That said, at the character creation stage I do think you can afford more than 2-4 options, since taking some time to make choices about a character you might be playing for years to come isn't entirely a negative. There using 7+/-2 isn't a bad goal (I'm close to that despite my kitchen sink system, but trying to squeeze every possible fantasy background down to less than about 10 has proven problematic).

Also worth considering is how much of that you actually need to specifically remember at the table. If your class provides 2-4 combat options and your background provides 2-3 non-combat options and those are the only ones you have to keep track of in play, it may not matter so much that the list of options those 2-4 things comes from has a dozen or so items to choose from during the creation stage (ex. a spell list from which you choose the handful you actually know).

I usually like almost minimal complexity when I run a game. I often do this by using a relatively simplified BRP, so maybe a 2.

However, some systems do add something valuable with their complexity, often to fit a very specific genre. The One Ring for example. Not sure where that fits on these scales. 8?

Everybody wants 5-6. They just disagree about where 1 and 10 are.

13 dials that only go to 11 just don't cut it.

Quote from: Trond;1078377I usually like almost minimal complexity when I run a game. I often do this by using a relatively simplified BRP, so maybe a 2.

However, some systems do add something valuable with their complexity, often to fit a very specific genre. The One Ring for example. Not sure where that fits on these scales. 8?

Nice insight. Yeah, I'm also willing to engage greater complexity when I see value in it (One Ring is a great example). What I can't stand these days are basic things like chargen or task resolution being too complex.

Are we talking about player-facing crunch or DM-facing crunch? I'd ideally want most system crunch off-loaded to the players since I have enough shit to worry about as the DM as it is.

IIRC, in the early days player-crunch was essentially nil and the DM handled almost the entire combat system. So, I guess my vote would be for as little crunch as necessary for both players and DM, just to get keep things moving.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078360One way to evaluate HOW COMPLEX each system is: The Magical Number Seven.

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Looking at my OD&D PDF's, you can boil down the entire "system" to:

1.  d6 checks (all are based on a 2 in 6 chance)
2.  2 Attack charts (could use only 1 chart if desired)
3. 1 Saving Throw chart
4. 1 Reaction table
5. Spell chart
6. Turn undead chart
7. Encumbrance chart

So, in total that's only 6-7 subsystems in use during play, since many folks ignore encumbrance.

TBF, there are ability score, XP, and HD charts too, but those would only be used between sessions (the ability chart typically being used only once during chargen and if you assume "average stats" could be easily ignored altogether, like I often do.)

Even the XP and HD charts can be ignored for those DM's who level up characters based on something other than gold/monster kills (like me.)

Mostly 2 to 5. System means far less to me than people, snacks, settings, and fun ideas to play with. :) In D&D terms, no more complex than PHB 5e, maybe with half the feats turned on, and multiclassing turned off. Though I would prefer Basic 5e, and prefer AD&D 2e even better.

I think my big cutting off point is when Session Zero spills over beyond one session. :p

Quote from: Opaopajr;1078407I think my big cutting off point is when Session Zero spills over beyond one session. :p

Fully equipping a single Shadowrun 5e character with gear can take more effort than building an entire party of characters for a game like D&D 5e or Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1078408Fully equipping a single Shadowrun 5e character with gear can take more effort than building an entire party of characters for a game like D&D 5e or Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Yeah... been there, done that, once. Once. :mad:

So how would you guys rank Rolemaster? There are plenty of rumors of its crunchyness, but I always found it relatively straightforward (although I always simplified it a bit).

Quote from: Trond;1078413So how would you guys rank Rolemaster? There are plenty of rumors of its crunchyness, but I always found it relatively straightforward (although I always simplified it a bit).

Character creation and advancement can be a pain in the ass without a character generator program/spreadsheet, but with one it's not too bad. In play, it can vary tremendously depending on what rules you are using (% of action bits being the ones that I found to be a pain in the ass).

Quote from: The Spaniard;1078366Hey y'all, new poster here.  I play mostly C&C, but am an old 1E player as well.  I'm somewhere in the middle.  3E and Pathfinder are too crunchy.  Just started playing in a 5E game, so it's too soon for me to comment on that one yet.  I'll get to it though.

Awesome to have a new poster.  I looked into C&C pretty hard.  I didn't purchase it, but it was high on my list.  I found it very interesting that Gygax was writing content compatible with C&C at the time of his passing.  I'd love to see his last writings.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1078422Character creation and advancement can be a pain in the ass without a character generator program/spreadsheet, but with one it's not too bad. In play, it can vary tremendously depending on what rules you are using (% of action bits being the ones that I found to be a pain in the ass).

I agree. But because of that and the vast amount of tables filled with numbers, there are plenty of people who wouldn't go anywhere near it. And because we played it with % of actions, I would rank it pretty high in complexity.

Quote from: The Spaniard;1078366Hey y'all, new poster here.  I play mostly C&C, but am an old 1E player as well.  I'm somewhere in the middle.  3E and Pathfinder are too crunchy.  Just started playing in a 5E game, so it's too soon for me to comment on that one yet.  I'll get to it though.

Welcome to theRPGsite!

Quote from: Trond;1078413So how would you guys rank Rolemaster? There are plenty of rumors of its crunchyness, but I always found it relatively straightforward (although I always simplified it a bit).

I'd rank it as a medium/high level of crunch, possibly higher if you're using all the companions and various options. Say around 7 if you're using just the RMFRP core book (or RM2/Classic core books), and 8 or more as you start adding stuff.
As others said, much of the crunchiness is front-loaded, as it will hit you during character generation. Once you're set up it's fairly easy to run.

I like crunchy stuff, but these days I'd say a 7 is as much as I can handle, unless I already know the system or I'm really motivated.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1078408Fully equipping a single Shadowrun 5e character with gear can take more effort than building an entire party of characters for a game like D&D 5e or Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1078409Yeah... been there, done that, once. Once. :mad:

Hence the 9 on my scale, hahaha.

I've enjoyed playing 5e quite a bit, which people seem to have down as 5ish on the crunch ranking. Having said that, I'd probably lean towards more crunch rather than less. I found Dungeon World a bit dissatisfying (and that's probably 2-3 crunch). By contrast, even though I think Dark Heresy could be simplied without undermining the experience, I think that's a great game (and would rate it around 7 on the crunch scale).

Crunch level depends on the type of game and whether I like the feel of it. I've played Phoenix Command with the advance rules, that is a definite 10 in complexity, my friends and I used to joke that Phoenix Command was the Bullet Time RPG. For Fantasy games simpler is better, 1st ed AD&D without the nit-picky rules.

I want around as much crunch level as Basic/Expert D&D.