If you heard the term "crunch renaissance"...

[delericho]

... what would that say to you, if anything?

I'm sorry, but it sounds like an awful marketing term.

Would you see it as a positive or negative?

Negative. I have no problem with rules-heavy games (though they're probably not for me), but I don't like that term.

(Funnily enough, though, I don't have a similar objection to Old School Renaissance.)

 

[Blackbrrd]

... I would think of the Renaissance, and wonder what crunch had to do with it. I am familiar with the OSR term, but as Old School Revival, not Renaissance. In other words, it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Balesir]

... what would that say to you, if anything? Would you see it as a positive or negative?

I would take it as a qualified positive.

"Positive" because I, like you, generally like "crunch". I prefer the rules to the game to be explicit and shared (via written rules) among all the participants, and I think that the alternative is actually not "few or no rules" but "rules that are the limited province of one or a few people, known only to them and imposed by them on everyone".

"Qualified" because I think that many "crunchy" rule sets falter in not adhering to two critical principles:

- There should be exactly as much crunch as required; not one jot less, and not one jot more. Crunch for crunch's sake is a bad thing. This is, of course, a matter of judgement... tricky!

- A crunchy system should form a whole that is consistent within itself. If it describes a world, the world it is supposed to describe should not be at odds with the crunch of the system. If, for example, there is one obviously superior way to do things, then (almost) everyone in the world should do things that way, not some other way "just because".

Subject to these being followed, I think a "crunch renaissance" could actually be a fine thing.

 

[Yora]

What kind of crunch exactly would need to be revived?

 

[steenan]

... what would that say to you, if anything? Would you see it as a positive or negative?

My first association when reading this term is something that already happened.

A move from games that had incomplete, contradictory, overcomplicated or otherwise bad rules, but masked it with "rule zero", to games where RAW work. Authors that know that rules are important and design them with clear goals in mind. Rules that are not necessarily more complex, but that are solid, and engaging them makes the game fun instead of detracting from it.

For me, it's not about going back to from rules-light games to rules-heavy games. It's going back from games where rules are often a necessary evil to games where rules produce fun.

And it's definitely a positive trend.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's interesting that I started a thread a while back asking whether rules heavy was bad and rules light was good. This thread is saying the diametric opposite to what that thread said!

I still maintain that - PF aside - there's a current "fewer rules is better" opinion. I disagree with it, but I think it's there.

I don't think the word "crunch" translates into "number of pages of rules text" though. I think what some people here have said is that the term "crunch" suggests that new ground is being broken, like (to be topical) when one feels the satisfying crunch of stepping into newly fallen snow.

To me, the epitome of crunchiness is something like the 3e Unearthed Arcana, that has not merely repackagings of existing concepts but entirely new ideas. In that vein, I'd argue that the core rulebooks + UA had more "crunch" than every single product that's been published under the D&D label since then, combined. The late 3e books often didn't break much new ground. Conversely, with PF, you get few releases but relatively meaningful new ideas with each major new rulebook, and because most of 3e isn't OGL, a lot of what they're producing is genuinely new.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think the word "crunch" translates into "number of pages of rules text" though. I think what some people here have said is that the term "crunch" suggests that new ground is being broken, like (to be topical) when one feels the satisfying crunch of stepping into newly fallen snow.

To me, the epitome of crunchiness is something like the 3e Unearthed Arcana, that has not merely repackagings of existing concepts but entirely new ideas. In that vein, I'd argue that the core rulebooks + UA had more "crunch" than every single product that's been published under the D&D label since then, combined. The late 3e books often didn't break much new ground. Conversely, with PF, you get few releases but relatively meaningful new ideas with each major new rulebook, and because most of 3e isn't OGL, a lot of what they're producing is genuinely new.

I was getting that more from the reactions to "renaissance". Crunch can be old or new, I'd think.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I was getting that more from the reactions to "renaissance". Crunch can be old or new, I'd think.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think crunch and rules heavy are quite the same thing. To me, the former actually has a positive connotation, and the latter negative.

 

[Morrus]

Just veering into the silly now...

Crunch Crunch Revolution!
Crunch Celebration!
All the crunch you can eat!
I love crunchy games but I couldn't eat a whole one!

 

[fireinthedust]

What scares me is the idea of Crunch-playing games rather than roleplaying games that have crunch. I love a good strategy, and optimization, building stuff, etc.
I just don't like confusing.
And I don't like play styles where the action stops dead constantly due to use of yet-another-subsystem.
I also don't like homework (like hours of distributing power points to determine specifically the range, area, level, damage, attack bonus, etc. of Superman's heat vision when it may or may not get used in the game).

Overcome those and I'm okay with crunch, in theory.


Question: is equipment crunch? Are resources and resource management crunch?