Season 7 Episode 9

[kaitoujuliet]

I definitely think the phenomenon Tappy describes exists; I wouldn't use the term "crunch" or "crunchy" for it, as those terms have a different meaning that's generally agreed upon, but maybe we could think up a new term to describe the case where the mechanics pervade every aspect of a game. "Mechanic-infused" or something, maybe.

Mar 11, 2012 20:02:52 GMT -8 HyveMynd said:

To me, right at that moment I wasn't role playing any more. I was trying to force the fiction of the story down a certain path simply because I needed a mechanical benefit to be effective. Throughout the whole game we were trying to justify fictional reasons why we could add certain dice to our rolls just because we needed those extra dice to have a chance against the Watchers NPCs. It seems that you have to constantly be aware of situations that you can take mechanical advantage of while playing this game. Your "crunch brain" always has to be on, even in situations that would be pure role playing in other systems.

I remember having a similar discussion on the old board about my experience with another game; I think it was Dogs in the Vineyard. I think a lot of new-style games which tie the mechanics to story elements rather than character abilities have this issue. I'm sure it's a feature, not a bug, but it definitely requires a paradigm shift to get used to playing this way.

Mar 12, 2012 12:23:31 GMT -8 ironnikki said:

Fluff is completely different, in that there is a requisite amount of fluff that must be present for a good story to be told. Whether that fluff is provided by the system or the collective imagination of the players and GM is dependent on both the system and group, but there must be enough fluff to encase the plot and provide some wiggle room when things go awry. The exception here is, of course, the sandbox game, which is nothing but fluff, and in no way a bad thing.

You had me nodding along up to the last sentence. I'm not sure I get how a sandbox game is fluff-only. Wouldn't it depend on the system? I would think a crunchy sandbox game ought to be possible.

Mar 12, 2012 20:24:17 GMT -8 henryhankovitch said:

Crunch or crunchy-ness is not a binary state, in opposition to "fluff" or whatever else. It's a relative descriptor, like "warm." You can't separate things into "warm" and "not warm"; you can only compare them by saying that one is warmer than another, and make statements of taste regarding how warm you want something to be. Crunch is the same. Crunch is a measure of volume; the more numeric rules and abstract subsystems a system uses, the more crunchy it becomes, regardless of the amount of fluff material or roleplaying which may also exist within the game.

I really like this summation.

Mar 13, 2012 6:28:35 GMT -8 Nolinquisitor said:

- Crunchy (Savage Worlds)
- Crunchier (GURPS)
- Crunchiest! (Rolemaster)

I will see Rolemaster and raise you SYNNIBARR! ;D

[ironnikki]

kaitoujuliet: Oops, I've mixed up what I was trying to say! What I was trying to get at was that to me, fluff is everything about the setting that isn't the series of events that make up the main plot. In a sandbox style game, there is no major predetermined plot, so everything about the setting is fluff. I don't see crunch and fluff as related concepts, and agree with you that a crunchy sandbox game is possible.

[Houndin]

I haven't been really invested in the crunch vs. * argument or whether FATE is 'crunchy', but I just wanted to point out something.

I've just joined the audience, and as such I'm listening to the current episodes whilst I'm slowly 'consuming the massive backlog' from the beginning. Last night during my commute, I was playing S1E4 and Tappy defines his definition of crunch between 5:56 and 6:09. I nearly had an accident. Go have a listen.

[muntjack]

I was going to post the same thing, Houndin. I'm re-listening to the podcasts, and I noticed that he defines it in a way that sounds a bit different from what he says in this episode. I just didn't want to contribute to this flame war and anger the cool dude on the other side of the hamburger.

[Deleted]

Just read this line in a gaming essay I'm reading, that has nothing to do with Happy Jacks. Made me want to scream! I can't get away from it!

"Also, look out for jargon: "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here. "

AAAAGHHH!!!

--Pukka Tukka

[kevinr]

Posted by hyvemynd Even though he conceded his point, I'm still siding with Tappy in the Great Crunch War of 2012. In my opinion, if you constantly have to think about and consider the mechanical effects of your actions even in what would be considered RP scenes, that's "crunchy". FATE is crunchy because you're constantly thinking about how to apply Aspects to other characters or to the scene, which you'll then use to gain an advantage.

Basically, if the mechanics dictate the majority of actions the characters make, the system is crunchy. If the fiction dictates what mechanics come into play, the system is... smooth? I guess.

This is the impression I felt Tappy was trying to get across and personally I would refer to this as MetaGamey over Crunchy. Fate is a very Metagamey system. I know people that define crunch as a mechanic that takes away from the immersion of the system. They would for sure view Fate as a crunchy game.

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2012 8:02:31 GMT -8 @pukkatukka said:

Just read this line in a gaming essay I'm reading, that has nothing to do with Happy Jacks. Made me want to scream! I can't get away from it!

"Also, look out for jargon: "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here. "

AAAAGHHH!!!

--Pukka Tukka

So what did they define crunch as then?

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2012 12:14:13 GMT -8 @whodo said:

Mar 17, 2012 8:02:31 GMT -8 @pukkatukka said:

Just read this line in a gaming essay I'm reading, that has nothing to do with Happy Jacks. Made me want to scream! I can't get away from it!

"Also, look out for jargon: "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here. "

AAAAGHHH!!!

--Pukka Tukka

So what did they define crunch as then?

In this case, he was using it as a distinction from "Gamble." In a "gamble" situation, you just know that you may or may not succeed, and you go for it. In a "crunch" situation, you can actually calculate your odds out, based on the system mechanics, and play the odds.

But yeah, he was using it in a specific context for his essay, not attempting to define the term as a whole.

[kaitoujuliet]

To add to that (I've just finished reading the essay myself), he was using it with reference to in-game events, not to features of the system. It's more related to the term "what you do when you're in a crunch" than to the term "number-crunching."