Quote from: RPGPunditI'm looking forward to a time when more of an emphasis is put on setting once again; and where "setting" means more than just "that thing where you get regional feats from".

Perhaps I could interest you in a White Wolf game? The Storyteller World of Darkness line sounds like it would be right up your alley. Exalted is also overflowing with setting. You may want to check it out.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think it's really a "today's RPG scene" thing. Rolemaster (which some would call the undeniable King of Crunch) was first released in 1980. The complete Fighter's Handbook, and subsequent line of player-aimed books filled with new ways to push numbers around on your sheet, came out in '89.

Yeah.  Champions / HERO System also started in the early 80s.  Then you had super-complex systems like Aftermath and Space Opera.  

I do think that D20 has pulled the average system towards the crunchier side since it was introduced (compared to the White Wolf model which was more typical of the 90s).  Still, I think there's been a variety of levels of crunchiness since the early 80s.

I started playing back in '79, too, and the desire for crunch was already there. I don't know how many reams of paper the gamers I knew, as well as myself, wasted on modifying games to add in crunch. That generation grew up to be game designers and game buyers who desired more crunch in games right out of the box.

some of the examples in this thread make me laugh.

Warhammer tabletop and Storyteller being used as "crunch light"?

Both games are notorious for piles of special rules, splats, power lists, and all sorts of other fiddly bits.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe internet showed up and let people know just how many different ways to play there are out there. What was once a book that got flipped through once and subsequently ignored because "nobody would play that" is now an active online community.

Insightful, I think.

It certainly explains how Classic Traveller, Tekumel, Harn, Ars Magica and other games hardly anyone plays can have so many websites, discussion forums and so on.

Quote from: HaffrungBut what I find difficult to understand is how many of today's small, independent games are also the domain of insatiable system wonks. I mean, weeks after games are published, you see calls for more options, more talents, more feats, more monsters, more spells, when the owners of the game can't possibly have come anywhere near exhausting the existing options. It's simply unfathomable to me how many gamers crave more options for games that they have hardly even played yet.

It's simple -- cause and effect.
Cause: They hardly ever play the game
Effect: Therefore they crave more.

Someone who loves roleplaying but hardly ever plays has to express that love in some other way, by meticulously painting miniatures, writing exhaustive backstories, constructing intricate houserules, carefuly selecting spell lists, planning feats to level 20 and any other labor-of-love stuff that can be accomplished without actualy playing a game.

Idealy, I like some gaming but not to much. That way I show up to game with a painted miniature, a good backstory and acceptable feats and equipment (or houserules if I'm wearing the viking hat.)

Because nobody demanded anything else than rules and most people still don't do. How many people buy rules books and how many buy setting books in comparison? I am willing to bet that there are a lot more people who buy rulebooks, always have been. No matter whether we played Shadowrun, Das Schwarze Auge or Vampire.
And that of course formed the opinion of the industry of what is needed and what is not so much needed in a rpg. So, the industry puts out more and more rules and what happens... a lot of people buy them. They would be stupid if they wouldn't put out more rules.
And that is ultimately the reason why the rpg market is shrinking, most rpgs at least the meainstream ones, are fucking inaccessible. Ever tried teaching a rules heavy system to a group of people who never played a rpg before? Tried that a couple of times with shadowrun (which isn't even nearly as complex as say D&D) and most of the time only got blank stares when I pulled out the rulebook and started talking.

Here are some popular games and their light<-->heavy rating from BGG.  The higher the number the heavier / crunchier the game.

Clue         1.65 / 5
Risk         2.05 / 5

Ticket to Ride      1.87 / 5
Carcasonne      1.94 / 5
Settlers of Catan   2.37 / 5

Arkham Horror      2.29 / 5
Battlelore      2.77 / 5

Descent         3.17 / 5
War of the Ring      3.77 / 5
Twilight Imperium   4.04 / 5

The lighter the game (less crunch) the more widely popular it has the potential to be.  Heavy (crunchy) games can be popular -- but only within a niche audience.

Quote from: James McMurrayPerhaps I could interest you in a White Wolf game? The Storyteller World of Darkness line sounds like it would be right up your alley. Exalted is also overflowing with setting. You may want to check it out.

No, they're not. They're overflowing with pretentious bullshit.  They were in fact some of the first to KILL setting by making Setting an excuse to sell "splatbooks".

SETTING is stuff like what you used to get in the Old World Gazetteers for Mystara. Lots of cool details, random tables for encounters and for fluff material, stuff on local challenges, culture, etc. and really cool hex maps.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, they're not. They're overflowing with pretentious bullshit.  They were in fact some of the first to KILL setting by making Setting an excuse to sell "splatbooks".

Awww, now now. Someone is all cranky and didn't do a lot of white wolf reading in the last half decade.

Seriously, the relaunch of the WoD in 2004 cured the metaplot problem, these days the setting books of the WoD lines are pretty well done and useful.

Quote from: blakkieI think the better question is 'when did somebody notice this stuff would move like hotcakes if you made it'. The gearhead tendency has been there a long, long time. Even if it didn't translate to purchases at every table.

That's probably true.

Maybe my personal experience was skewed towards the casual players. In the heyday of D&D we were 10-15 years old, mostly guys who found the rules D&D already a bit bewildering and hated math and homework to begin with. Even among DMs, game preparation was all about drawing maps and populating dungeons. I don't remember a DM ever adding more rules to a game, nor a player asking for more spells/options. The PHB and DMG kept us going for 20 years.

Quote from: David JohansenFrom a product perspective more rules = more books = more money.

The business model killed the old 100 page book in a box that was often a fairly complete rpg.

That's what I'm talking about. We bought Gamma World, Top Secret, or Call of Cthulhu, and we were done. All we needed were new adventures.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's what I'm talking about. We bought Gamma World, Top Secret, or Call of Cthulhu, and we were done. All we needed were new adventures.

Well, not every gaming group buys the same stuff. Around here people would never touch a published adventure because we thought they were boring and took pride in "making cool stuff up".
Rulebooks on the other hand... we purchased quite a few.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think it's really a "today's RPG scene" thing. Rolemaster (which some would call the undeniable King of Crunch) was first released in 1980. The complete Fighter's Handbook, and subsequent line of player-aimed books filled with new ways to push numbers around on your sheet, came out in '89.

I'm not doubting there have always been players who preferred very complex systems and couldn't get enough new rules. I'm questioning why rules expansions went from being the domain of a particular style of RPG to an absolute necessity for all RPG systems.

Six months after Gamma World was published we didn't see the Book of New Mutations, or Gear of the Apocalypse. The only thing you saw were adventures. Same with Call of Cthulhu. And Stormbringer.

The designers published the rules, and then the line survived with settings and adventures. Now for most games, the rules are followed by more rules, and no adventures to speak of.

I was looking up Reign last night. All the supplements published after the core game have been devised after submissions from players saying what they want. And it seems all they want is more rules. How many adventures have been published for Reign? Zero, as far as I can tell. Even after six books of supplements.

Quote from: HaffrungI was looking up Reign last night. All the supplements published after the core game have been devised after submissions from players saying what they want. And it seems all they want is more rules. How many adventures have been published for Reign? Zero, as far as I can tell. Even after six books of supplements.

The problem with designing adventures for REIGN is that for the adventure to make even the slightest bit of sense you'd have to choose what kind of Company to pitch it at - you can't design a module which is equally suitable for the rulers of a kingdom, the kingpins of a thieves' guild, a threadbare theatrical troupe and the hidden leaders of a near-extinct cult. Anything you produce will be entirely unusable in half the REIGN campaigns out there.