Argyle King
Legend
I've found that crunch isn't necessarily synonymous with complex (especially when it comes to tactical play).
If the rules of a game are intuitive and create outcomes that largely "make sense," I've found that it's easier to teach, learn, and work with a game.
I've played low-crunch games that I felt were more difficult to play than high-crunch games due to un-intuitive design or a design that produced cognitively dissonant results.
For example, when teaching a group of new players, a lot of what I accept as common in a D&D game is difficult for someone new to rpgs to absorb because the game assumes tropes and in-game playstyle that doesn't always make sense outside of D&D.
•"Why can't I aim for the eye of the Beholder?"
•"I want to grapple the wizard and hold his hands so he can't cast spells."
•"I want to play as a valiant knight on horseback."
If the rules of a game are intuitive and create outcomes that largely "make sense," I've found that it's easier to teach, learn, and work with a game.
I've played low-crunch games that I felt were more difficult to play than high-crunch games due to un-intuitive design or a design that produced cognitively dissonant results.
For example, when teaching a group of new players, a lot of what I accept as common in a D&D game is difficult for someone new to rpgs to absorb because the game assumes tropes and in-game playstyle that doesn't always make sense outside of D&D.
•"Why can't I aim for the eye of the Beholder?"
•"I want to grapple the wizard and hold his hands so he can't cast spells."
•"I want to play as a valiant knight on horseback."