"What rules would you describe as 'Crunchy'" Topic

So we've been having a discussion at my local game store about rules that are 'Crunchy'. One player said that he found Battletech to be 'Crunchy' rules. I disagreed saying that I think 'Crunchy' rules are ones that you have a higher curve on actually grasping the rules. Another player said that though the 40K basic rules are easy to understand its the numerous special rules given to every army that turn it into a 'crunchy' game. So what's everyones take?
"Crunchy rules" are
a)usually Complex
b)lots of stats to keep up with like Battletech
c)Lots and lots of exceptions like 40K
d)other?

This has been discussed often online. A quick Google search will reveal it. One's crunchy is another's whatever non-crunchy is called. Here are my ideas.

Advanced Squad Leader is crunchy; the Band of Brothers series from Worthington is not.

Johnny Reb III is crunchy. Empire whatever version is crunchy. Black Powder is not.

Seakreig any edition is crunchy; Victory at Sea is not.

Many rules to track? Usually not much to do with stats, though crunchy rules seem to love stats or modifiers?

Would clunky rules be crunchy?

Would clunky rules be crunchy?

Not necessarily. Rules can be awkward without having tons of detailed bits.

Crunchy rules, however, are very often clunky.

Crunchy is a Spectrum. Time is also a factor.

Starfleet Battles was known to be crunchy back when Battletech was "normal". Circa 1990

Now Battletech is crunchy as more games have streamlined mechanics.

So the poll is actually about what makes a ruleset 'crunchy'?

ASL and Empire are certainly on my list. oh, add Harpoon as well.

I think so Bill

I have used "crunchy" to mean a), b) and c), and also:
d) tending toward literal or very concrete representation of actions/processes/results.

I tend to use the word the same way for gaming, computer programming, mathematics – "crunching" numbers, "crunching" through details, "crunching" through a process with a lot of steps, etc. See also: "grinding".

Antonyms include (but are not limited to):

• abstract
  
• streamlined
  
• simple/simplified
  
• elegant
  
• impressionistic

Here is a crunchy example of shooting:
Short Range: +1
Long Range -1
Target Ran -1
Obscured Target-1
Rested Weapon +1

Here is the streamlined version:
"You know what Bob, most shooting is combat is like 30% accurate"
OK, 5+ to hit it is!

Luckily we moved past thinking crunch made things more "realistic"

I usually use crunchy to mean B. Lots of mental work just to figure out what I need to roll.

I find all the superhero rules crunchy. The basic rules are easy to understand but every single hero has different stats, powers and ability that give a +1 here and a roll this here.

I'm reminded of the sequence in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit where Gregory Peck is getting exasperated with corporate flunky who's complaining Peck's writing lacks "oomph," but can't coherently define oomph.

Maybe I'll have cold cereal for breakfast instead of a bagel tomorrow. Cereal is definitely crunchier, but the bagel does have that outer crust … hmm.

My instinctive reaction to "crunchy" would be a rules set that involved suspenseful scouting, punctuated by sudden, savage, high casualty fire fights with quick disengagements.

I am no wiser than before on this. But hey I don't think the definitions used look that sensible.

Complex has 2 connertations in my mind:-

a) Lots of factorts and lots of special rules to remember, but that does not seem to be "Crunchy". Games wuthout some level of detail are jusr poor representations. Mr Elmos representation of "steamlined" proably more like the author of the rules has no understanding of the real world. Man in trench is massively diffrent to man walking in open. Certainly to me niether definition is "Crunchy".

b) Simple but requires lots of thought. In abstract gaming Chess would be a good example, simple rules but tactically challemgeing.

If I had to go with a definition and I am not suree It's one I would use, I would go with HMS Exiter.

Mr Elmos representation of "steamlined"

There was a time when a laundry list of modifiers and worrying about minutes per turn, yards per inch, and how fast soldiers walk in line was needed to be accurate. That approach is a fool's errand for verisimilitude.

In the end the true measure is if the GAME "feels right"

Warmachine. If I group this with that it does this unless I also have that in which case it does something else unless so and so is leading and then this happens unless they are fighting those, and its even more different if those have this other figure in which case my unit does not do this unless my other unit is within range AND if it has these other things attached and the enemy is NOT using a particular warcaster.

For me crunchy has always been about level of detail. Bolt Action is not a crunchy game. Very abstract. Spectre Operations is more crunchy. Worrying about the equipment each soldier has and the role they fulfill in a firefight. Both fun but very different styles of play

Anything with pages of charts! When you have to go through a lot of steps to determine if you give 1 casualty then that's crunchy. Also things like the elan test in empire 4. Those mechanics really weigh a game down. I like buckets of dice games like tactica medieval. Moves quickly, has a good result and is easy to digest for new players.

I have always defined crunchy as "has the kind of detail I don't care for."

I find all the superhero rules crunchy. The basic rules are easy to understand but every single hero has different stats, powers and ability that give a +1 here and a roll this here.

That's what I liked about HeroClix (before the "modern" version), there was none of that. Each figure had its own stat dial that implemented the rules in a unique way, but there were no special rules. Parameterization vs hard coding.

This is interesting. I didn't consider "crunchy" to always be a derogatory term. It just meant lots of detail and moving parts.

Crunchy certainly can result in "bad" rules. I don't usually like to call rules bad, just intended for an audience that is not met. That said, rules that don't meet their intended purpose or ones that are internally inconsistent are bad. Lots of bits don't necessarily mean bad, and they are not necessary for bad rules. But the more parts, the greater chance for those types of problems to creep in.

I have a set of Age of Sail pirate ship combat rules. It's called "Advance and Transfer" after two of the main nautical engineering descriptors of a ship's motion during a turn. It's crunchy. You give simple conning and combat orders like you would on such a ship. Those go into a delay table (everything is not instant or constant time) and you use some basic nautical analysis (a couple of tiers of maneuvering board) to get your outcome.

A lot of crunch, but the point of the crunch is the point of the game – a specific degree of realism in the behaviour of the ships. So all the crunch has a direct purpose.

RPGs om the 70's and 80's had a lot of crunch like that. But it was actually part of the fun of the game. With A&T, I wrote a calculator that took the inputs and would run the numbers for you. So, if each player has a tablet or phone, you remove the crunching. (But if you're that kind of nerd, the crunching is fun.)

I think one way to make "crunchy" playable is to use a customized data card for each unit. This eliminates looking up modifiers to base numbers, looking up rules in the book, memorizing special rules, and making calculations.

A lot of crunch, but the point of the crunch is the point of the game – a specific degree of realism in the behaviour of the ships. So all the crunch has a direct purpose

I absolutely agree. As a designer, I would expect you to put the most detail into what you are attempting to simulate since you cannot go into a lot of detail for each action.

Most game designers start out with a game turn of a set amount of time like 10-90 seconds. Rather than using timing to execute an order their design emphasis is on ways to realistically and playable parse the action and initiative within the game turn using non-historical abstractions and artificial game mechanics with multiple die roll modifiers, cards, command points, IGYG, turn interrupts, etc. to get the right "feel" into the game and to make the game playable.

There is a whole slew of abstracted and artificial rules and modifiers to make the game more realistic or give it the "feel" the designer wants to communicate to players. The game may be more "crunchy" but it may put too much of a burden on the player to make the game worthwhile to play. I think we are all looking for the right balance of crunchy and ease of play.

My opinion is that most game systems have the player performing actions and using game mechanics that have nothing to do with real combat or tactics so all you can do is hope for the right "feel" which will be subjective like "I'll know it when I see it."

My preference for a game system is a quote from Tactical Decision Making, Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Warfighting:
"Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time-competitive process and the timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, "Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time-competitive process and the timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."

Which sadly leads to the common military misconception that it's better to do the wrong thing than to do nothing.

Yes, mostly a misconception because I doubt if it is formally taught at academies. I think it's more about Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions and lower command initiative for implementation. Indecision is the worst form of command.

By way of clearing the ground for a better understanding of the "do-something" shibboleth, we might stop parroting that fallacious catchphrase, "It is better to do the wrong thing than to do nothing." The only excuse for such advice is that doing nothing is sometimes worse than almost any positive action. But, like all half-truths, this one can lead to serious errors. The danger in it lies in the encouragement of hasty, ill-advised activity. Moreover, it completely overlooks the fact that the need for positive action in many situations may be fully met by the purpose of fully doing nothing at the moment.

When in doubt – attack.

Wolfhag

Not sure if there's a minefield ahead?
Attack!

Boom, boom…..boom.

Ooops!

Ah well.
I'll make a better quicker decision next time.

yes, if you are Russians or crazy Marines:
link

But all joking aside, there are historical accounts of units doing exactly that because it was their only course of action and the risk was thought to be a greater reward. There is an account of a Marine unit walking through a minefield and stepping on the exposed anti-tank mines on a Kuwait beach landing because they were too light to detonate them but I can't find the reference. Surprisingly it worked, with no causalities.

Wolfhag

Zhukov told Eisenhower.

"There are two kinds of mines; one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a mine field our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there. The losses we get from personnel mines we consider only equal to those we would have gotten from machine guns and artillery if the Germans had chosen to defend that particular area with strong bodies of troops instead of with mine fields. The attacking infantry does not set off the vehicular mines, so after they have penetrated to the far side of the field they form a bridgehead, after which the engineers come up and dig out channels through which our vehicles can go."

Zhukov would know about attacking through a minefield. IIRC he said that the Germans did not have enough men or weapons to adequately cover a minefield and hoped the Russians would avoid them. For this reason, Zhukov would purposely target a minefield with guys from the Penal Battalion because the area was lightly defended.

From the book, "Commanding the Red Army Shermans"
PDF link

I racked my brains, and my company commanders pondered. We sought some means of untying this Gordian knot. We could not bypass the minefield obstacle. Frequent rain had turned the plowed field into a morass, and it was impassable. Drozdovskiy turned to me. He had read somewhere how some tankers, racing a T-34 at high speed, had flown through a minefield. Because of the vehicle's high speed, the mines exploded behind it and did not damage the tank. "This is a tempting idea. But who will be able to accomplish it in practice?" I thought. As if responding to my doubts, Konstantin suggested, "I agree to race like a whirlwind across the enemy obstacle." There followed several minutes of discussion. All the pros and cons were weighed. And then, "Good luck!"

We quickly prepared the Emcha for sweeping. We removed the auxiliary fuel drums, took the ammunition from under the floor in the combat compartment and put it in the upper storage racks, and placed the main gun and antiaircraft machine gun in travel lock.

Drozdovskiy himself took the driver's seat of the Sherman and dismounted the remainder of his crew. "It was my suggestion, and therefore it is my duty." In the event something occurred, only one would be lost. The exercise began with a seven hundred-meter running start. Revving the Emcha's motors, he raced toward the mined sector of the highway, piled with dirt, rutted and cratered from bombs.

After some seconds, there was an explosion, then another, then several more. Geysers of earth and chunks of road surface showered the racing Sherman. By the strained roar of the diesels, we determined that the tank was still running. Several more explosions, then quiet. Finally, the light breeze carried the yellowish-black smoke away. And we spotted our minesweeper, undamaged. Konstantin was standing on the left fender of the Sherman, wiping his sweaty face. A path had been cleared through the minefield. But I did not hurry to send the remaining tanks through. For full confidence in the safety of the lane, I thought we should widen the path created by Drozdovskiy. I declared to the column, "We need another volunteer!" Several driver-mechanics stepped forward, among them my own, Guards Senior Sergeant Gennadiy Kapranov. I gave him permission to "inspect" the just-created track marks.

In the evening twilight, the battalion negotiated the minefield at low speed along the beaten track and then
hurried toward Tapol

The length of a Sherman is about 5.5m. Moving at 40kph the Sherman would move about 5.5m in 1/2 of a second. I can't find any specifics on a delay fuse for a Tellermine but evidently, it is enough of a delay to allow that tactic to work.

Wolfhag

I doubt it was a delay fuse, just the inherent delay in a mechanical pressure pad plus the time the fulminate took to actually fire the main charge. Anyone who has played with black powder weapons knows there a noticeable delay between flashing the pan and the charge igniting. A Tellermine [or any other similar A/T mine] would be quicker but certainly not instantaneous.

This article also demonstrates why an undefended minefield is really a waste of time.

Thanks, Mark. That makes sense.

Wolfhag