Crunch appeal

#61

I’ll give a few samples from the study about Content (information you have to keep in mind or at hand, like stat, table, diagram, special case, etc.), Crunch (operation you have to make to process the information) and Steps (actions that will require time no matter what : rolling for attack, rolling for defense, apply armor, apply damage, etc.) :

Reve de Dragon 2ed

  • Brawl : 5 Contents 6 Crunches 5 Steps
  • Action : 10 Contents 7 Crunches 5 Steps
  • Ranged combat : 12 Contents 13 Crunches 9 Steps
  • Mele : 28 Contents 14 Crunches 9 Steps
  • Magic : difficult to count (cascading consequences) typically around 30 Contents 30+ Crunches 30 Steps

Wild Talents :

  • Action : 5 Contents 9 Crunches 5 Steps
  • Combat : 31 Contents 20 Crunches 10 Steps

Burning Wheel :

  • Action : 79 Contents 34 Crunches 15 Steps

Otherkind :

  • Action : 6 Contents 7 Crunches 6 Steps

Observations :

  • The first two games are heavily from the wargame bloodline. Their bulkiest feature is roll for attack / roll for defense. Contrasting this with their lack of narrative structure, it’s like the game punishes the players (not the characters) when it manages to lure them into an hours long combat tunnel.
  • RdDr Brawl rules (skill contest in a tie break) look good !
  • Wild Talents is not upfront about its complexity : the Combat page is like, one page : declare, roll, resolve, when in fact a lot of procedures drip page by page after that, that are simply necessary to process a combat.
  • Burning Wheel is wired on its reward system at. every. step. and creates cases and exceptions on purpose, to trick the innocent noobs. Look at the numbers and tell me it’s not too much.
  • Otherkind is so light it falls upward. Also, all of its content is generated by the players. Compared to the “long metal pipe” combat, this seems like a “cable octopuss”, much like PbtA moves. Rolling first and narrating according to the result just isn’t for everybody.

Observations on the study so far :
Numbers are approximations but scale differences are solid. The chosen units “count easy”, without any of the difficulties I expected for special maneuvers and modifiers.

Content seems proportional to Crunch. So, maybe the difference is significant for other parts of the rules (I am thinking character / situation creation).

Wargames get a “Content Factor” around x2 for “Martial maneuvers”. It’s striking none of the two games did propose noobs to start small with “actions”, then to add “combat”, then finally “optional rules : combat maneuvers”.

I didn’t measure fictional output, because I realized every crunch produces an output, if only a soccer match commentary : “nope, this one doesn’t get through the armor”.

What could be significant wrt the Rules heavy / lite tagging of games is the amount of Structure. But that requires a scale to measure.

1 Like
#62

This is an interesting way to look at mechanics, so I thought I’d apply it to a game I think is ‘light’ … my own Against the Dark Conspiracy. Before the slash is ‘combat’ after the slash is everything else.
Content (information you have to keep in mind or at hand, like stat, table, diagram, special case, etc.): 1 combat move/7 other moves.
Crunch (operation you have to make to process the information): 3 = roll + read move + mark Stress &/or Intel
Steps (actions that will require time no matter what : rolling for attack, rolling for defense, apply armor, apply damage, etc.): 1 = all the moves are resolved with a single dice roll, though ‘combat’ might require a second roll for ‘Consequences’.

That feels ‘light’ compared to your other examples, though now I look at it should my Crunch be Steps?

1 Like
#63

“Should” doesn’t hold in this matter : as long as there’s more Crunch than Steps, we could argue on 10% and still be at the right scale. This tool is not precise enough to measure differences between PbtA games, I believe.

If I had to argue on your results (for the sake of argument) that would be on Content : I believe one typical AW move would involve more Content than itself. If you always have the option of taking Harm or paying 1 Barter to skip a difficulty, for instance, that’s already 2 Contents that are not even in the move. Likewise, any roll that may be modified by Hx, or Hurt dice, has Hx and Hurt dice within its Content horizon. Also, in some games like RdDr, you can set difficulty to succeed or set it so you mark XP. That’s never said in the rules but it’s something to bear in mind that experienced players will do : 2 options, 2 Contents. In a nutshell : beware hidden Content.

In any case, PbtA will be PbtA : low crunch, low content. Proof is : most of the content can fit on the player sheet and a handful of principles.

I think that sort of counting can help find an objective ground to account for “medium weight” games and to weigh unusual procedures, such as betting, tarot reading, etc. that regularly seem “complicated” when they are just you know ^^ “different”.

edit : added Leadtown count

Leadtown

  • Contest : 10 Contents 6 Crunches 5 Steps
  • Shootout : 12 Contents 11 Crunches 7 Steps

The Shootout is longer, and it’s the point of the move. What is made visible is the x2 Content factor for the otherwise light Contest resolution procedure. This is due to : bet on the Banker Card, crossing 2 sources to determine outcome, and most of all, resolution table is the typical “cable octopuss” PbtA move, affecting various currencies, numerical ($, luck, attribute) and fictional (primary and secondary suits, relationships).

2 Likes
#64

Thanks for the shoutout! I dig this look at game complexity. It’s also helpful to determine if my game needs more or less crunch.

1 Like
#65

Another french person had a similar idea to crunch counting, with mistakes but interesting anyway :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fledecharne.home.blog%2F2021%2F06%2F04%2Fle-moteur-primaire-la-complexite%2Fcomment-page-1%2F%3Funapproved%3D1%26moderation-hash%3D578d057eff010fed476121750164cfc0%23comment-1

2 Likes
#66

I carry on with this pet peave of mine :
I made a mechanic for a game where players read dice for something (“Time mat” below), and GM reads them for something else (“Thread”). this was intended to give some time to the GM to flesh up an encounter with various elements, like “instant scene, just pour water”. As the Thread has various informations in it, the crunch to content ratio does something rare : it drops below 1. I am eager to see how it will feel in play.

Time mat :
reserve w/ token
pick priority
roll dice
lookup season, weather, time
= 4 crunches, 3 content infos = 1,33 crunch ratio

Thread :
lookup sensations & setting, narrative arc, encounter
= 1 crunch, 3 content infos = 0,33 crunch ratio

Oh, and that too : Q/R, as in DftQ games and character creation questions, have a nice round value of 1:1 crunch ratio. Maybe that’s why this sort of rules didn’t show up on the early “body of rules” radar.

2 Likes