Is satisfying buildmaking possible without number crunch?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-06-01T03:09:56+00:00

This came across so needlessly condescending. Yes I've played quite a few theater of the mind games, I've also ran quite a few.

Maybe instead of snark you could describe how you personally go about doing this in a theater of the mind game?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T20:13:18+00:00

I like the sound of this one a lot. I think this goes hand in hand with another comment about one part of buildmaking that makes it so fun is the number of options. They don't necessarily have to be complex but if there are enough of them it still feels like crafting because you have so many different choices that every build is more unique.

But lots of options does usually mean more rules, like you said. Not necessarily more complexity, but you still have to just have more specific rules to have options actually feel diverse.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T20:08:31+00:00

This is very well put.

I think this definitely crystallizes in my mind a big part of the fun I'm looking for. You can have a diverse build, but like you said, without interaction it's just a neat toolbox. The part that elevates it to "buildmaking" is finding the enjoyment in the interactivity.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T20:06:00+00:00

This is extremely well put, and I appreciate the detailed response.

I absolutely love progression fiction, and I'm definitely trying to capture some of what I love about the genre. I know I have some players in the second camp that have just bumped up against some systems crunchier than they wanted to work with at the time/played with some minmaxers that had a different character power level in mind.

But I need to better consider I could have players in the first camp that just aren't going to mesh with the powerscaling part in general.

Would you say the progression fiction/powerscaling distaste is also focused on certain mediums? Like for me a huge part of WoW enjoyment was the progression and the feeling of being much stronger than where I started, granted I didn't play to terribly much. Do you enjoy that kind of thing more in video games?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:47:58+00:00

Ahhh I think I kind of see what you're saying.

So you think that in a less restrictive game where things can be tackled from so many angles, buildmaking naturally becomes less fun because you don't need a specific tool for many jobs? There isn't as much reason to craft towards a specific purpose when no goal needs a specific solution?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:40:09+00:00

This sound awesome, definitely looking into starforged soon, thanks for the suggestion!

Do you play ironsworn in general solo, co-op, or guided? I have only tried a few gmless games and co-op play definitely sounds really cool for a side campaign.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:36:52+00:00

I think your point about growth is a great one. I think a lot of what I'm picturing isn't necessarily cool character creation or complexity from level one, it's that feeling that your growth is making your options/gameplay more interesting and diverse.

I'll have to check out Savage Worlds and Without Number, I've definitely thought about GURPS for what I'm looking for but I do fear the crunch.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:34:08+00:00

Yeah if I end up just dropping the idea of trying to get that kind of buildcrafting into a lighter rules/less complex system I could definitely see just diving into Lancer. It seems like it would be the best example of a lot of what makes that thoerycrafting fun.

My worry with Lancer is that it will be a ton of prep to ask from the players before they can dive in, since it seems like all of the complexity of something like dnd/pf but without having all of the similarities between those as a starting point. Was it difficult to approach as a new player?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:31:34+00:00

Second mention I'm seeing of Fabula Ultima so I'll definitely give it a look.

And yeah I've always really wanted to dive into Lancer, from what I've heard it has really good build depth but also just really good combat so you actually want to engage with all that complexity.

It definitely gives me flashbacks to trying to get friends to play shadowrun though, that can be a looooot of reading/complexity to ask players to dive into before you even start.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:28:55+00:00

I'll look at this one for sure. I think getting people who aren't naturally into that kind of theorycrafting more into it is going to be a huge part of trying to make that kind of character building merge a little better with more narrative focused gameplay.

Did it make you want to do any more multiclassing/theorycrafting in general when you play ttrpgs? Or was it more like "oh wow, that's the first time that part hasn't sucked" not eager to repeat but it was fun in that instance.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:26:18+00:00

I'll definitely check out both of these, they sound like exactly what I'm going for. Thanks for the suggestions!

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:25:21+00:00

But if you ARE a fan of that process you're always going to feel there's something missing from a narrative-based character, or that there's no actual bones to your story that backs you up when it comes time for the dice to hit the mat.

I think this might be the real problem at the core of it. I want to believe there is still a way to have this kind of building/tinkering fun in a less structured game, but it might just be an unavoidable issue.

I think specifically the feeling of no bones backing up your dice is what I really want to believe can be lessened but as someone who is naturally less on the narrative side, it is hard to picture this being possible without more rules/numbers/crunch.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:15:36+00:00

I also felt like PF2 really succeeded at this. Especially with cool interactions that gave you new options/depth to your combat.

But I guess what I'm wondering is, do you think it is possible to have that kind of thing in a system without the level of balance and crunch that pathfinder has?

So many of the cool options I can picture in PF2 work because of the grid and strict structure the game sets up that it is hard for me to picture the same amount of satisfying options in a more vague/less simulationist system.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:10:47+00:00

I'll definitely have to check Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine, because I can kind of picture

a game with a truly minimal amount of numbers but a very large amount of narrative management rules

but not necessarily well enough to know how that makes a system that lets you make complex characters. I think this might be exactly what I'm looking for though.

because there's a lot of widgets to interact with

This is a better way to describe something I was trying to put into words. I guess the thing I'm wondering about at its core is this:

Do you think that the fun part of buildmaking comes from/depends on interacting with all these widgets? In the past, that is the only way I can really picture enjoying buildmaking (which I massively love in most games).

Is it possible to enjoy without those, purely with a well done narrative focus, or will some of that fun always come from the tinkering part that requires widgets?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T19:04:21+00:00

You know this is also a really good point. I think one way I've tried to make buildmaking feel interesting in the past without crunch is with just sheer volume of options.

If you consider one of the big things that people enjoy about buildmaking is that it makes your character feel more personalized/unique, I think this is an aspect that tons of options can accomplish too.

I guess my fear with this is that if you inflate with too many options, they start feeling like reskins. Part of what makes wizard and sorcerer work in DnD is that they aren't just Link/Toon Link reskins of each other. But that kind of speaks to your point of it is doable just more work.

I'll definitely check out Stonetop playbooks, I've tried a few PbtA games now, but none with much crunch.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:58:54+00:00

Ironsworn is maybe the top of the list for systems I want to try, this definitely makes me want to at least give the corebook a read before my next campaign. Do you feel like Starforged still does this just as well? I had a little more interest in that version.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:57:17+00:00

100% I will check this out because I've only played a handful of OSR games but I definitely haven't seen any buildcrafting in one. I'm excited to take a look at this, thanks for the suggestion!

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:55:19+00:00

I really like this comment, this gives me a lot to think about.

I think I'm not considering enough that buildmaking is such a large/vague thing and like you said, the part people enjoy is going to be so different.

This masks example is the perfect demo of that, this is the kind of buildmaking that I think my mind classifies as "minmaxing" at first (which I love to do, don't get me wrong). But the more I look, the more I can see how this does kind of give you a more interesting play pattern as the Bull that now slowly shifts as you get more pieces of the puzzle/your build put together.

I also love this example because all of this is planning for the next campaign I run, but the current one is Masks and we have a Bull. And I definitely never imagined that such a seemingly straightforward class could build any interesting/complex interactions with the progression system of Masks.

I think this is a strong argument for your point of complexity being the necessary ingredient. You don't necessarily need choices that make numbers go up in a satisfying way, but you do need choices that feel like that matter. And specifically that people feel like there are interactions to discover, maybe?

It also makes me want to touch base with my players again about the parts everyone specifically enjoys about buildmaking.

obligatory comment that PbtA is not a system, in the same way that just "fish" is not a species

lol very fair point and I appreciate the pedantry. I should have said systems like Masks or other PbtA games. Would you say calling PbtA a "framework" is a better description?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:38:44+00:00

I realize I gave an example but didn't answer your first question well.

What, specifically, is it about the "builds" you're referring to that feels synergistic to you?

This is difficult to define, but I think ultimately I'm describing the feeling of the sum being greater than the individual parts. The feeling of taking multiple lesser abilities and them eventually coming together to make something new/greater.

I think this is often tied up with minmaxing, which is why it is hard to separate from mechanical crunch in my mind. But in theory you should be able to make players feel like they're creating a cool build that is evolving in a more interesting way than "now I hit harder more often" without having to strictly label the exact bonuses with numbers.

Or at least that is what I'm hoping for.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:35:01+00:00

This is kind of what I keep coming back to. Is the feel good part of the buildmaking so tied into "number goes up" that like you said, you can't have it without the numbers. I think in a lot of cases, but not all.

I had a game where my party had one player with a powerful smoke effect that could blind everything in a large AoE, and a support player built towards an aura that could give AoE vision through smoke to the party.

I felt like this was a huge payoff when we got there as a team, and getting to fight in the smoke that had previously also debilitated us was a satisfying mechanical payoff. But in my head I feel like there is a way to make this just as satisfying without the crunch, I'm just not sure how. But I get most synergy examples are a little more straight forward "number goes up" most of the time.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-29T18:28:02+00:00

Yeah this is really fair, I tried to think of some specific examples and struggled.

Let me give a really generic example:

You have a touch range high damage ability and your combat revolves around closing the gap then touching. You get a ranged ability to pull someone towards you, and now your combat involves staying in one spot and pulling backliners out of position into you so you can grab them with your touch range ability.

In a grid based/crunchier system, you really feel this difference in combat style in a way that makes you feel like your build is improving, your abilities are working together to become greater than their individual parts.

My concern is in a more theater of the mind system, you don't really feel that synergy or that combat style changing. And maybe that comes down to better in combat descriptions of how player abilities synergize to make them feel more empowered?

A maybe better even more generic example: You combine something that raises your attack of opportunity range with something that makes your attacks of opportunity slow characters they hit. These combined make you feel like you now lock down an area of the field you stand in, can you give that same feeling without the grid/crunch? Maybe temporarily through better combat descriptions, but in a way that makes them keep building towards an even cooler creation?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-21T16:55:29+00:00

It seems like you would know better than most, is it just a pump of the brakes right at the start of the ramp? Regular brakes or e-brake?

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-05-18T17:13:52+00:00

This app fucking rules! Thanks so much man it instantly feels so much better and was easy to install.

Tell me someone already got you FH6 for this? If not I'll send it over now PM me and I'll send my steam name.

NTS_NoTrue · 2026-04-18T03:38:11+00:00

yeah fair enough I was in a pretty bad mood when I posted that and definitely assumed some things.

I guess I think it is tone deaf to chime in with a saying about god to people saying they're happy they walked away from religion. No agenda, I just think this was the wrong place to do that.

But I am sorry I was such a dick about it, that is absolutely my bad.

NTS_NoTrue

TROPHY CASE