I started my 15 years of GMing with Pathfinder (1e) and there are certainly times when I miss all that crunchy goodness.
I would agree with you, though that it is incredibly hard to find just the right balance between unhelpful, non-useful crunch; and strategic crunch that makes the system and setting feel good. I'd say PF was good but not great in that regard.
If your looking for a good system with a lot of "good crunch" maybe look at Adventurer Conquerer King (ACKs)
I'll have to check that out. I bounced off of it a while back due to the creator being kind of a fuckhead, but i have heard great things about the domain play and economics portion.
My big thing about crunch is that the complexity should be the fun, not this thing that gets in the way. And you can absolutely make that crunch accessible and not a huge chore to understand, let alone perform.
Glad we're on the same page about that - I felt the exact same way about PF and honestly any DND post 3E.
I clearly don't keep up with what creators do or who they are in the TTRPG space because I encounter this every now and then and I'm like what did the creator do? In fact, who is the creator?
I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I suppose the benefit is that it lets me choose a system based on the system not the person behind it. The downside I guess is if it's a really terrible person I probably shouldn't play their game.
I mean, I have no judgement for anybody playing a game made by an asshole or racist or sexist or whatever. Nor do I have judgement for anybody who feels like playing those games is off limits for them.
For me personally, I'll just look for a free version of the person's rules or an SRD or something along those lines. I'll just find some way not to pay them.
Great article. I have circled around from "more rules = better" to "story is > rules", and now I'm at "I want rules to support the story/genre" rather than being just for their own sake. I look forward to more info on Adamir!
Thanks for the kind words! My path follows yours very closely in that I craved more rules in the beginning, then rejected them, and now realize they need to be married to the setting and characters being played (if they're going to be there at all).
I have always lent away from crunch. What do rules really do? They act to define and prescribe the limits of action. I’m all for limitation - in fact, I have a post in gestation about the importance of limits and constraints at the table. But I’m not convinced that those definitions and limits have to rely on mechanics. Rather, I think they can arise organically from adherence to the fiction as derived from genre and setting. To be clear, it would perhaps be more accurate and less prescriptive to say that I happen to prefer it when the scope of possible events in a game is determined less by mechanics than by the decisions of players and rulings by the GM that make sense in the context of that particular game.
If my table wants to play a grimy low-fantasy medieval game where they are minor gentry struggling to stay afloat in a kingdom wracked by plague and civil war, I certainly could try to emulate much of that with mechanics - a granular emphasis on health and disease, on tracking resources, on the utility of armour or the care and use of horses, estate management and ‘social combat’. Or we could agree that, within the parameters of the game as decided, many (most?) of those things are subject to ‘rules’ that emerge from the quality and character of the game. In this context, one doesn’t need a rule (or, more probably, several pages of rules) to be able to handle in detail how an attempt by a starving, untrained peasant to defeat an armoured knight in single combat will turn out. Everything about the fiction tells you what you need to know and, if one were to create mechanics that faithfully emulated that world, wouldn’t the end result (a dead peasant) be the same? It seems to me that one could, in principle, play such a game using any rules-lite OSR retro-clone as a chassis but would have more issues if one tried to bring it to the table using Rolemaster. Of course, I parody somewhat for effect and I’m in agreement with your broader point about the desirability of the marriage of system and setting. Mine is a narrower point about the relative role of each of those elements and an argument for privileging fluff over crunch.
One might wish to say that mine is a ‘luxury preference’ in the sense that, in order for it to work, one needs players and a GM who are prepared to impose upon themselves the limits that are implied by the genre and setting even when there are no explicit rules to enforce, or even define, them. I think I’d have to concede this point and admit that my personal experience has been perhaps unusual (and certainly, from my point of view, extremely fortunate). It could also be argued that the logical terminus of my preference is systemless gaming and, again, I wouldn’t deny that. As it happens, the vast majority of games I play in and run so rarely call on any specific mechanics that they are, in effect if not in fact, played as if they had no system underpinning them. I freely allow that many - perhaps most - players would find this profoundly uninteresting and even, perhaps, frustrating and so, if one is going to have rules, I entirely agree that they should strive wherever possible to align with and reinforce the setting.
> … To be clear, it would perhaps be more accurate and less prescriptive to say that I happen to prefer it when the scope of possible events in a game is determined less by mechanics than by the decisions of players and rulings by the GM that make sense in the context of that particular game.
On this, I think we agree for the most part but I would say that my preference comes from setting expectations of what a game provides from the get-go. I trust, like you, that the players and GM can make decisions that benefit their own tables in whichever way they want (however intelligent or harebrained those decisions are).
> … Everything about the fiction tells you what you need to know and, if one were to create mechanics that faithfully emulated that world, wouldn’t the end result (a dead peasant) be the same?
Oh, for sure! I think where I come from is that I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time doing that (coming up with a rule or agreement that everybody at the table finds ‘good enough’) and have started to tire of the small cuts such untracked augmentations inflict on the game as a whole.
One wonders if the game chugs along with a bevy of rules that support setting and play OR the game operates entirely devoid of those codified rules but has hosted many conversations and agreements between players and GM about the setting and play, has the same amount of work been performed in the end - the difference being more of the chicken and the egg situation?
> It seems to me that one could, in principle, play such a game using any rules-lite OSR retro-clone as a chassis but would have more issues if one tried to bring it to the table using Rolemaster. Of course, I parody somewhat for effect and I’m in agreement with your broader point about the desirability of the marriage of system and setting. Mine is a narrower point about the relative role of each of those elements and an argument for privileging fluff over crunch.
On this we agree wholeheartedly and I’ll admit, selfishly in fact, that my setting isn’t intended to be interoperable with other systems. Sure, you *can* regraft the setting into a different system but I can only design what I want to see if I were running it and hope that appeals to others. I do genuinely believe that to take the setting without the rules, in my case, would be akin to purchasing a building that has the exterior of a four-story condominium, but the interior of each story is one massive empty warehouse-like space.
Which, at that point, why not just buy four warehouses?
My setting / rules are an extension of my desire for my own table. If others find that burdensome, I completely understand and don’t fault them for that whatsoever.
> One might wish to say that mine is a ‘luxury preference’ in the sense that, in order for it to work, one needs players and a GM who are prepared to impose upon themselves the limits that are implied by the genre and setting even when there are no explicit rules to enforce, or even define, them. I think I’d have to concede this point and admit that my personal experience has been perhaps unusual (and certainly, from my point of view, extremely fortunate). It could also be argued that the logical terminus of my preference is systemless gaming and, again, I wouldn’t deny that. As it happens, the vast majority of games I play in and run so rarely call on any specific mechanics that they are, in effect if not in fact, played as if they had no system underpinning them. I freely allow that many - perhaps most - players would find this profoundly uninteresting and even, perhaps, frustrating and so, if one is going to have rules, I entirely agree that they should strive wherever possible to align with and reinforce the setting.
Par sit fortuna labori - let the success be equal to the labor! And let the laborer take whatever form they wish, whether it be the one who parses an extensive list of setting-supported rules or the one who only needs the CliffsNotes and can fill in the gaps themselves.
My point of entry into games was 5E. I got tired of everything under that brand. I now have been running Mork Borg but am circling back to learning a crunchy system. OSE.
This trends! I find this pipeline is a lot of people's story as well. Certainly I came from the 5E scene and moved to OSR / NSR / more indie games from reading blogs and listening to podcasts.
I started my 15 years of GMing with Pathfinder (1e) and there are certainly times when I miss all that crunchy goodness.
I would agree with you, though that it is incredibly hard to find just the right balance between unhelpful, non-useful crunch; and strategic crunch that makes the system and setting feel good. I'd say PF was good but not great in that regard.
If your looking for a good system with a lot of "good crunch" maybe look at Adventurer Conquerer King (ACKs)
I'll have to check that out. I bounced off of it a while back due to the creator being kind of a fuckhead, but i have heard great things about the domain play and economics portion.
My big thing about crunch is that the complexity should be the fun, not this thing that gets in the way. And you can absolutely make that crunch accessible and not a huge chore to understand, let alone perform.
Glad we're on the same page about that - I felt the exact same way about PF and honestly any DND post 3E.
I clearly don't keep up with what creators do or who they are in the TTRPG space because I encounter this every now and then and I'm like what did the creator do? In fact, who is the creator?
I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I suppose the benefit is that it lets me choose a system based on the system not the person behind it. The downside I guess is if it's a really terrible person I probably shouldn't play their game.
I mean, I have no judgement for anybody playing a game made by an asshole or racist or sexist or whatever. Nor do I have judgement for anybody who feels like playing those games is off limits for them.
For me personally, I'll just look for a free version of the person's rules or an SRD or something along those lines. I'll just find some way not to pay them.
Great article. I have circled around from "more rules = better" to "story is > rules", and now I'm at "I want rules to support the story/genre" rather than being just for their own sake. I look forward to more info on Adamir!
Thanks for the kind words! My path follows yours very closely in that I craved more rules in the beginning, then rejected them, and now realize they need to be married to the setting and characters being played (if they're going to be there at all).
Interesting, thoughtful post.
I have always lent away from crunch. What do rules really do? They act to define and prescribe the limits of action. I’m all for limitation - in fact, I have a post in gestation about the importance of limits and constraints at the table. But I’m not convinced that those definitions and limits have to rely on mechanics. Rather, I think they can arise organically from adherence to the fiction as derived from genre and setting. To be clear, it would perhaps be more accurate and less prescriptive to say that I happen to prefer it when the scope of possible events in a game is determined less by mechanics than by the decisions of players and rulings by the GM that make sense in the context of that particular game.
If my table wants to play a grimy low-fantasy medieval game where they are minor gentry struggling to stay afloat in a kingdom wracked by plague and civil war, I certainly could try to emulate much of that with mechanics - a granular emphasis on health and disease, on tracking resources, on the utility of armour or the care and use of horses, estate management and ‘social combat’. Or we could agree that, within the parameters of the game as decided, many (most?) of those things are subject to ‘rules’ that emerge from the quality and character of the game. In this context, one doesn’t need a rule (or, more probably, several pages of rules) to be able to handle in detail how an attempt by a starving, untrained peasant to defeat an armoured knight in single combat will turn out. Everything about the fiction tells you what you need to know and, if one were to create mechanics that faithfully emulated that world, wouldn’t the end result (a dead peasant) be the same? It seems to me that one could, in principle, play such a game using any rules-lite OSR retro-clone as a chassis but would have more issues if one tried to bring it to the table using Rolemaster. Of course, I parody somewhat for effect and I’m in agreement with your broader point about the desirability of the marriage of system and setting. Mine is a narrower point about the relative role of each of those elements and an argument for privileging fluff over crunch.
One might wish to say that mine is a ‘luxury preference’ in the sense that, in order for it to work, one needs players and a GM who are prepared to impose upon themselves the limits that are implied by the genre and setting even when there are no explicit rules to enforce, or even define, them. I think I’d have to concede this point and admit that my personal experience has been perhaps unusual (and certainly, from my point of view, extremely fortunate). It could also be argued that the logical terminus of my preference is systemless gaming and, again, I wouldn’t deny that. As it happens, the vast majority of games I play in and run so rarely call on any specific mechanics that they are, in effect if not in fact, played as if they had no system underpinning them. I freely allow that many - perhaps most - players would find this profoundly uninteresting and even, perhaps, frustrating and so, if one is going to have rules, I entirely agree that they should strive wherever possible to align with and reinforce the setting.
> … To be clear, it would perhaps be more accurate and less prescriptive to say that I happen to prefer it when the scope of possible events in a game is determined less by mechanics than by the decisions of players and rulings by the GM that make sense in the context of that particular game.
On this, I think we agree for the most part but I would say that my preference comes from setting expectations of what a game provides from the get-go. I trust, like you, that the players and GM can make decisions that benefit their own tables in whichever way they want (however intelligent or harebrained those decisions are).
> … Everything about the fiction tells you what you need to know and, if one were to create mechanics that faithfully emulated that world, wouldn’t the end result (a dead peasant) be the same?
Oh, for sure! I think where I come from is that I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time doing that (coming up with a rule or agreement that everybody at the table finds ‘good enough’) and have started to tire of the small cuts such untracked augmentations inflict on the game as a whole.
One wonders if the game chugs along with a bevy of rules that support setting and play OR the game operates entirely devoid of those codified rules but has hosted many conversations and agreements between players and GM about the setting and play, has the same amount of work been performed in the end - the difference being more of the chicken and the egg situation?
> It seems to me that one could, in principle, play such a game using any rules-lite OSR retro-clone as a chassis but would have more issues if one tried to bring it to the table using Rolemaster. Of course, I parody somewhat for effect and I’m in agreement with your broader point about the desirability of the marriage of system and setting. Mine is a narrower point about the relative role of each of those elements and an argument for privileging fluff over crunch.
On this we agree wholeheartedly and I’ll admit, selfishly in fact, that my setting isn’t intended to be interoperable with other systems. Sure, you *can* regraft the setting into a different system but I can only design what I want to see if I were running it and hope that appeals to others. I do genuinely believe that to take the setting without the rules, in my case, would be akin to purchasing a building that has the exterior of a four-story condominium, but the interior of each story is one massive empty warehouse-like space.
Which, at that point, why not just buy four warehouses?
My setting / rules are an extension of my desire for my own table. If others find that burdensome, I completely understand and don’t fault them for that whatsoever.
> One might wish to say that mine is a ‘luxury preference’ in the sense that, in order for it to work, one needs players and a GM who are prepared to impose upon themselves the limits that are implied by the genre and setting even when there are no explicit rules to enforce, or even define, them. I think I’d have to concede this point and admit that my personal experience has been perhaps unusual (and certainly, from my point of view, extremely fortunate). It could also be argued that the logical terminus of my preference is systemless gaming and, again, I wouldn’t deny that. As it happens, the vast majority of games I play in and run so rarely call on any specific mechanics that they are, in effect if not in fact, played as if they had no system underpinning them. I freely allow that many - perhaps most - players would find this profoundly uninteresting and even, perhaps, frustrating and so, if one is going to have rules, I entirely agree that they should strive wherever possible to align with and reinforce the setting.
Par sit fortuna labori - let the success be equal to the labor! And let the laborer take whatever form they wish, whether it be the one who parses an extensive list of setting-supported rules or the one who only needs the CliffsNotes and can fill in the gaps themselves.
My point of entry into games was 5E. I got tired of everything under that brand. I now have been running Mork Borg but am circling back to learning a crunchy system. OSE.
This trends! I find this pipeline is a lot of people's story as well. Certainly I came from the 5E scene and moved to OSR / NSR / more indie games from reading blogs and listening to podcasts.
What pushed you from MB to OSE?