Rolemaster has been criticized for years for being too crunchy, or having too many tables. It might be helpful to remind ourselves that AD&D had it’s share of charts and tables too.
Update: Rolemaster (and RMU) got mentions in the comments!
Articles and discussion on Roleplaying including Shadow World, Forgotten Realms.
AD&D did have a number of charts, especially in the DMG, but most of them were really optional when it came right down to it. EGG loved having random event charts as well as charts to determine any number of obscure and not so obscure elements of his games (Mythus is another great example of this, although it’s perhaps not as well known as AD&D). Perhaps he intended many of them to serve as “training wheels” for new GMs. It’s hard to say.
RM in its various incarnations has always had more charts at its core than simplistic systems like D&D in its various incarnations. Part of that, I think, came from how it approached certain activities (combat being the prime example). Another part came from the large number of tables and charts introduced in the various Companions, which are often mistaken for core rules of some kind (we know they aren’t, but that understanding isn’t necessarily widespread or fully accepted…all you have to do is look at the RM forum postings to see that). It never really bothered me, because I tend to think being able to game with one kind of dice (and not tons of them a la Shadowrun and other games that use dice pools) outweighs any chart or table count. Give me a core d100 system with a number of tables any day over a supposedly simple system using tons of very kind of die made.
2 for the skill rollers; 3 charts for the spell casters; 11 for the crit masters; one for every conceivable weapon and one chart to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.