RE: Crunchiness

[Psion]

On the surface, I always figured that gamers were referring to the "portability" of rules only information into their home games; the thought that somehow no matter what rule was written, if it was written in a "crunchy" matter, it could all be transported magically into everybody's homebrews.

Now, there could be many reasons for a conclusion like this (whether true or not). If this was the case, I would pose the question: is that not what Open Game Content is for?

Not necessarily. Just because its open doesn't mean that it is portable. However, if you are making a product targeted at generic D&D, you should strive for portability if you want your product to sell.

Speaking personally, I like a fairly high ratio of crunchy bits, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Flavor text still helps to set the tone and context of the material and provide inspiration for the GM, in addition to being just a good read. But IMO, you should not try to disguise novellas as game products; paperbacks and sf/f zines provide better bang for the buck if that is what you like.

I do agree that portability plays into it inasmuch as I think that flavor text / short stories / etc. aren't as useful to someone with their own campaign. I can take a class that my have one or two incongruent points and make it fit my game with a few rules tweaks. However, it is far less likely that I will use a story or large chunk of flavor text after the fact, as the assumptions in the story often have nothing to do with what is going on in my campaign.

 

[Henry]

The first time I ever heard the term "crunchy bits" used was at the WotC web site, and it referred to having lots of game mechanics and options to add to someone's campaign - instead of being story prose, it contained rules and mechanics for you to "digest" and "chew on" and work into your campaign.

Until this time, I've never heard "Crunchy" used in any other way in a gaming product.

 

[rounser]

I would have thought that "crunchy" just means rulesy material or game stats, as opposed to "soft", narrative-oriented writing.

I don't know how the term came to mean easily portable to a home campaign to some people. "Generic" is a better term for that, IMO...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't know how the term came to mean easily portable to a home campaign to some people. "Generic" is a better term for that, IMO...

I've never heard "crunchy" used in that context.

For d20 products, "crunchy" refers to the amount of rules content in a prioduct: a high ratio of rules to oage count is crunchy.

 

[rounser]

I've never heard "crunchy" used in that context.

Neither have I, except in this thread. Maybe it's an anomaly.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Crunchiness (the rules content) vs. portability (ability to go from campaign to campaign):

Player's Handbook (portable and crunchy)
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (non-portable but crunchy)
Hero Builder's Guidebook (portable but non-crunchy)
Splatbooks (moderately portable and moderately crunchy*)

* Not crunchy enough for most, though!

 

[Tewligan]

I don't know how the term came to mean easily portable to a home campaign to some people. "Generic" is a better term for that, IMO...

My best guess would be that the use of "crunchy" has its origins in "number crunching", since (to me, anyway) crunchy=stats/hard rules/etc.

 

[rounser]

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (non-portable but crunchy)

Although you're right for the most part, the new races, equipment, spells and feats from the FRCS qualify as portable IMO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Crunchy

"Crunchy" as it applies to gaming products:

Think of a Nestle Crunch bar. It's got a lot of candy-bar "crunchiness"...it makes a noise when you bite into it. It also gives a satisfying break with the candy bar itself, and puts a perfectly sized piece into your mouth for your own use.

In a similar way, think of a gaming book as a candy bar...lots of good stuff, right? If it's "crunchy," you can take out pieces of it and digest them without having to eat the whole thing. If the gaming product is "soft," it usually means you have to digest it all to use part of it. You can't pull it apart, make a clean break. Some unwanted part is always gonig to come with it.

This is usually "modular." It mostly applies to rules, as rules are fairly universal, but it also applies to other things. Rules can be quite "gooey," and flavor text can be quite "crunchy."

Take, say, a rule about how, in order to cast a spell, a certain type of spellcaster must have a holy item (say, a wand) dedicated to a goddess of magic. This is a very "gooey" rule. To use this rule, you have to have a godess of magic, and spellcasters nessecarily have to venerate her/him, or at least pay homage to him/her. It brings with it conceptions about the nature of magic and the world it exists in.

Take the same idea, and just say "these types of spellcasters must cast spells through a specially designed wand." This is very crunchy. You can "bite" it out of the book it's in, and use it elsewhere. Not nessecarily anywhere, but elsewhere, without including everything about the goddess of magic or the religiousness of spellcasters.

To give, perhaps, a better example, take two ways of using magic: the Sorcerer and the Wizard.

The Wizard is very gooey. To use a wizard, you make certain guesses about the nature of magic, that it's a study, that you have to research, that it takes nothing special to master, that spellbooks are essential, that intellectual types make the best spellcasters.

The Sorcerer is very crunchy. It's just "innate magic." It could come from dragons, Fey creatures, pacts with extraplanar creatures, nearly anything. It's very portable, and can make a clean break with much of the rest of magic, whereas the Wizard cannot (Most basic D&D classes are fairly crunchy).

The wizard is a caramel bar...bite it out, and more comes with it. The Sorcerer is a Crunch bar...bite it out, and it breaks clean.

Crunchiness, in general, is good because it allows replay on vastly different scales. I know of many campaigns that have no use for a Wizard, who can still find a use for the Sorcerer. Someone could use a wand-based wizard in a lot of places (like, I dunno, the Harry Potter world). But if that wand-based wizard has to be dedicated to a goddess of magic, it's limited to the archetypes it can fill.

Crunchiness is good because it allows homebrewing extensively. It's modular. Of course, it can result in a schitzophrenic document, or a lack of interesting text that causes it to read like a textbook, if done exclusively. A Crunch bar without the chocolate is so much rice krispies.

"Meaty" is a related term, but it's more often used when the gaming product is well-thought out, thick, substantial, without a lot of "fluff." Meatiness is good because it provides a lot of bang for the buck. The DMG is a product that isn't very crunchy (most of it's rules are very integrated with each other), but is very meaty. The Monster Manual, on the other hand, is quite crunchy, but not meaty at all (lack of in-game flavor for the monsters, etc.). Excessive crunchiness can sacrifice meatiness, and vice-versa.

Mimicing Greathouse's ideas:

Player's Handbook: Meaty, Crunchy
FRCS: Meaty, Gooey*
Hero Builder's Guidebook: Meaty
Splatbooks: Crunchy
Manual of the Planes: Crunchy
Oriental Adventures: Gooey, Meaty*

(*: These books make a good effort to be crunchy, but generally fall short. The Regional Feats, for instance, could be crunchy...but their tied with FR regions, making them gooey.)

Crunchiness applies to the modular-ness of the book, which mostly includes rules, but doesn't have to.

 

[Desdichado]

Crunchiness is good because it allows homebrewing extensively. It's modular. Of course, it can result in a schitzophrenic document, or a lack of interesting text that causes it to read like a textbook, if done exclusively. A Crunch bar without the chocolate is so much rice krispies.

Have to jump in here and side with those who have never heard crunchy used to mean portable or modular before. Over on other forums, like rpg.net for instance, portability isn't really an option, since we're talking lots of different systems. They still use the term crunchy often enough, to refer to mechanical sections of sourcebooks.

As to whether or not crunchy=good, I'd say that depends. Nothing but crunch is very tiring to try and read. Fluffy materials, on the other hand, are very hard to do right and make your customers somewhat universally happy. But there's got to be a mix: all fluff is better as a novella, or just campaign notes, while all crunch is about the driest read you can do.

As to FRCS -- I don't own it, but I've looked through it often enough. Sure, it's got some crunchy stuff, but doesn't it mostly have fluffy stuff? Different organizations, what they're agendas are, what the different areas are and the like? I suppose FRCS is about as crunchy as a campaign setting can get, but by their very nature, a campaign setting has to have a high ratio of "fluffy bits" to "crunchy bits."

Blech! I actually don't like the term. Makes me feel really goofy to have used it so often in one post.