innerdude
Legend
I've been thinking lately about how much "crunch" I actually want in my games. I've only recently embarked on GM-ing FFG Star Wars, which is by all accounts a "medium crunch" system. Generally I'd agree with that statement, as so far it seems to be a bit lighter than Savage Worlds, but certainly not approaching PbtA or Fate on the "rules light" spectrum.
But it's interesting, because as far as I can tell, the majority of the "crunch" in FFG Star Wars is in the gear and vehicles. Other than the occasional talent (functionally equivalent to a D&D feat) adding an occasional bonus or removing penalties, the bulk of the crunch isn't in the character build options. You know the gear section is "crunchy" when the weapon keyword list is nearly as long as the character skill list.
This is different from what I experienced in my last attempt at really parsing Runequest / Legend, where reading the character generation steps took some serious mental fortitude and text parsing. Combining two attribute values, then dividing by 4? Movement rating versus weapon speed rating? Learning how all of this interacts / engages with the combat engine? ** wipes forehead **
And it got me thinking -- is one area of crunch easier or harder to work with? And does one provide more or less benefit, to what degree, and in what aspect of gameplay?
On a general level, it seems to me that mechanical "crunch" exists for one of two reasons.
For example, one of the things that drew me to Savage Worlds, for instance, was that even though it doesn't model character skills all that granularly (there's really only 5 tiers -- d4, d6, d8, d10, d12), it does elegantly and simply model the interplay between innate talent and skill. Learning skills is easier when you have a natural aptitude for it, but you don't get to just "skip" the actual skill training; you still have to build up the skills. There's a consistent, internal logic to building out your character's initial attributes and skills that follows an abstract, but generally realistic pattern.
There's also the question of crunch based on specialization (which is also largely a sub-component of entity differentiation). GURPS, for example, can be a very simple game if you ignore the need for having to specialize in 15 or 20 different weapon styles just to be competent at fighting---but if you choose to use the specialization it provides, there is no question when you're done building your character exactly which weapons your character is and is not good at wielding (i.e., specialization as a means to differentiation). Likewise with knowledge skills---modeling your average local pharmacist as a "standard" GURPS character probably requires purchasing 9 or 10 different skill specializations to even come close to representing his or her actual body of knowledge.
In my own experience, I've decided that I enjoy crunch for entity differentiation but only to a point, and am largely indifferent or even mildly hostile to crunch that insists on pushing towards the far end of the "realism" spectrum.
For example, despite having some experience with GURPS, it's always left me cold, as its rules crunch is focused on high granularity, hyper-specialized process-resolution "realism". Every ounce of "crunch" in GURPS goes in the exact opposite direction I'm interested in following. Likewise, despite hearing great things about Mythras, knowing that it's largely a reboot of Runequest 6 makes me think that it's probably just not going to be something I'm interested in.
*Edit: I'd add that historically, D&D's "crunch" is almost entirely focused on entity differentiation, with only casual nods to realism along the way. It's much more interested in putting forth the situational / tactical usefulness of a given rules interaction for the fun of putting it into play, rather than trying to wholly justify the hows-and-whys it actually works in the game world.
But it's interesting, because as far as I can tell, the majority of the "crunch" in FFG Star Wars is in the gear and vehicles. Other than the occasional talent (functionally equivalent to a D&D feat) adding an occasional bonus or removing penalties, the bulk of the crunch isn't in the character build options. You know the gear section is "crunchy" when the weapon keyword list is nearly as long as the character skill list.
This is different from what I experienced in my last attempt at really parsing Runequest / Legend, where reading the character generation steps took some serious mental fortitude and text parsing. Combining two attribute values, then dividing by 4? Movement rating versus weapon speed rating? Learning how all of this interacts / engages with the combat engine? ** wipes forehead **
And it got me thinking -- is one area of crunch easier or harder to work with? And does one provide more or less benefit, to what degree, and in what aspect of gameplay?
On a general level, it seems to me that mechanical "crunch" exists for one of two reasons.
- You're trying to enhance "realism" by modeling some component of how a given entity (person or thing) interacts with the game world.
- You're trying to differentiate one entity (person or thing) from another for purposes of uniqueness / situational usefulness (or situational impedance).
- Or a combination of the two.
For example, one of the things that drew me to Savage Worlds, for instance, was that even though it doesn't model character skills all that granularly (there's really only 5 tiers -- d4, d6, d8, d10, d12), it does elegantly and simply model the interplay between innate talent and skill. Learning skills is easier when you have a natural aptitude for it, but you don't get to just "skip" the actual skill training; you still have to build up the skills. There's a consistent, internal logic to building out your character's initial attributes and skills that follows an abstract, but generally realistic pattern.
There's also the question of crunch based on specialization (which is also largely a sub-component of entity differentiation). GURPS, for example, can be a very simple game if you ignore the need for having to specialize in 15 or 20 different weapon styles just to be competent at fighting---but if you choose to use the specialization it provides, there is no question when you're done building your character exactly which weapons your character is and is not good at wielding (i.e., specialization as a means to differentiation). Likewise with knowledge skills---modeling your average local pharmacist as a "standard" GURPS character probably requires purchasing 9 or 10 different skill specializations to even come close to representing his or her actual body of knowledge.
In my own experience, I've decided that I enjoy crunch for entity differentiation but only to a point, and am largely indifferent or even mildly hostile to crunch that insists on pushing towards the far end of the "realism" spectrum.
For example, despite having some experience with GURPS, it's always left me cold, as its rules crunch is focused on high granularity, hyper-specialized process-resolution "realism". Every ounce of "crunch" in GURPS goes in the exact opposite direction I'm interested in following. Likewise, despite hearing great things about Mythras, knowing that it's largely a reboot of Runequest 6 makes me think that it's probably just not going to be something I'm interested in.
*Edit: I'd add that historically, D&D's "crunch" is almost entirely focused on entity differentiation, with only casual nods to realism along the way. It's much more interested in putting forth the situational / tactical usefulness of a given rules interaction for the fun of putting it into play, rather than trying to wholly justify the hows-and-whys it actually works in the game world.
Last edited:
