lensman:
The best, most direct answer has been given, crunchy = Number crunching.
That is the arithmetic.
As someone who has no fear of arithmetic, nor of mathematics (two different but related things), I understand that number crunching might be the most reasonable path of descent for the term, but find that definition is too narrow to be consistent with current usage.
quote:
Nothing as complex as what we want for RPG's has one simple definition.
You are quite right here. It's one of the reasons I'm looking for clarity.
quote:
The 'as True' definition of crunchy is that, all mechanics are a barrier to role playing. Even free form has mechanics, I argue, those mechanics are hidden and can only be known as a function of interaction with the GM multiplied by hours of play.
I would have said there's a trade-off between mechanical complexity and playability, and that many games attempt to strike a happy medium somewhere between equally ridiculous extremes.
Too few rules mean too few opportunities for conflict, drama, tragedy, or comedy.
Too many rules result in what you so aptly called "roll play" -- we spend all our time consulting arcane tables and charts and trying vainly to gain advantage instead of realizing our dreams.
quote:
All players must breathe life, weave narrative, using mechanics and must conquer mechanics and reduce them to bite sized chunks, consume them, so they can fuel only role play.
And Referees/GMs/DMs/Storytellers/etc. must bring the game milieu to life using those self-same mechanics aided by no little imagination. So, from that point of view, a system of rules that is too complex leaves little room for the fire and brilliance that is life at its finest in the play of the game.
quote:
When someone says that a system is too crunchy, they have not defeated mechanics and thus are unable to produce role playing, consigning themselves to roll play.
And when someone says a system is chock full of crunchy gaming goodness it means the level of mechanical complexity is "just right", hmm?
drewalt:
I disagree that "crunchy" is the opposite of "smooth" or "slick" because a complex rule set can deliver more consistent and satisfying resolutions if it's designed well. Crunch is nothing more than complexity, and complexity can deliver a better experience for some people.
You make it sound like I limited the definition to exactly that, when I did not. Context is key to how the word is used, and I've seen it used in both positive and negative ways to describe a game.
I used to be a wargamer specializing in WWII armored conflicts at the operational and tactical levels. That's gaming I would describe as "crunchy" by the strictest of interpretations.
I nevertheless came away from the table when my Germans managed to cut off the Kursk Salient and subsequently unite their army groups for the push on to points east feeling like I had just conquered Russia - not like my numbers were better, but that my tactics and operations were such that I achieved
Victory, dag-nab-it!
I gotta hit the hay, folks. I work a long shift again tonight. Thanks for participating in this and for helping me remember and understand a bit better.