Some people just really enjoy testing the limits of what mechanical systems will let them do.  Not necessarily from a min/max standpoint but simply having a finite set of well defined building blocks and seeing what they can make from them that is interesting and mechanically unique.  It can be very satisfying to work with a well engineered system and finally figure out how to make all the pieces you want to include, click together.  I get some satisfaction out of it but others I have played with will create reams of characters to just explore the crunch a system offers and test how good and mechanically balanced it is.

The game might then be wholly separate from this activity.  Or perhaps is then viewed as a further testing ground for the system with a side effect of telling a story and interacting in a social way with people they enjoy the company of.

  A Haiku has rules it is working with in those rules that you find art.

  Some art forms are more strict then others.  Crunch or lack of Crunch doesn't really make a difference in whether a character is Heroic.  First Edition D&D Inherited the concept of the Hero and Super-hero from the "Fantasy Supplement" of Chainmail.  The later versions got rid of it by getting rid of the (Normals/ Zero Levels).

  Why am I what G. Gygax called Rules School, because for me the game systems are the physical and meta-physical laws of the universe or that particular part that they are in.

  My art is to play a Hero in those universes; to create a living breathing person [as long as they aren't a construct, undead, or unquiet dead.] with history friends and life or unlife to live.

Trust issues are a real item; some because of competitiveness, [remember D&D was started by wargamers used to playing against each other with referee.],  but also as has already been stated due to worry about shared vision of the situations in the game.
 And Trust does affect a wish for understood rules.

 But it can go both ways, in some where one would prefer NOT to have your character die a glorious heroic death; You can either Munchkin [compete with the DM] or find a GM who prefers heroic games, what ever the system.
This message was last edited by the user at 10:35, Thu 30 Mar 2017.

A system with good crunch lets you create a character that feels distinctive without constraining you.  It allows you to pick your best tools, and, most of all, to make meaningful decisions that affect more than your flavor text.  A crunchy game played, designed, and run properly, offers real choices with pros and cons.  Do you build a character with super strength or super speed?  Do you try to chase someone down or just blow up their car?

In a more purely narrative system, the distinction between those decisions is almost arbitrary.  Because the variables thrown into the mechanics you use are fairly narrow, the result is that your decisions are rarely more than window dressing.  Like someone said before, with enough wheeling and reaching you can turn FATE into essentially luck of the dice.

A more mechanically complex game gives those decisions shades of meaning.  Super Strength allows you to impact the world in true, concrete ways.  The decision to fight, stalk, or chase an adversary can lead to vastly different experiences, utilizing different and unique skills and interlocking mechanics that, viscerally feel different to play.  And in a system with more mechanical complexity, your choice to focus on a particular suite of mechanics can let you, as a player, shine when it's most appropriate for your character, when your character's prowess can carry the day even over the loudest alpha player.

While I really enjoy rules-lite games from time to time, I tend to find mechanically complex games more rewarding, just for those reasons.  I like my decisions to matter on a level higher than window dressing.

To some extent, this is the reason for my preference toward crunch.  I find it also helps with the non-crunch portion as well.

A system of numbers that make up my character isn't just 'numbers used to win' or something like that.  It's a framework on which I hang the character itself.  It defines my character's capabilities in a solid, comprehensible manner, which gives me insight into the character.  WHY do the numbers fall into place this way?  Why is the character this, or that, with this number or that one?  Chicken-egg - did I choose the numbers based on the concept I had in mind, or did the numbers help me fill out the concept after I chose them?

A little of both.

And I find this can help narration as well, as GreyGriffin points out.

I've seen a lot of these arguments - Freeform or Rules-lite versus Crunch - over the years, and they mostly boil down to people trying to prove their preference is 'better'.  I don't feel either is better - one might suit a specific PLAYER or group better, but that's personal preference and style.

My experience is that a rewarding experience with regards to a memorable 'story' or narrative can be easily created with either crunchy systems or rules-lite-to-freeform games.  It depends more on the group than the system.

I've been trying to beat this mindset into fluffy people for years. It doesn't matter which leads which so long as they match. If I see a cool mechanic in the book and I want to use it, there is nothing wrong with changing my story to match, if that change means some other stats should change to match the new narrative that is even better.

So ya, chicken and egg so long as this chicken lays that egg and comes from a similar egg.

It's not just trust, it's about arguments.

I was once playing in a very light system. (Spells were a bit complicated, everything else was super fluffy.) We spent 20 minutes arguing whether a dire wolf can climb a tree or not, at least well enough to bite someone sitting in the branches. We did calculations, we Google'd images, we yelled at each other a lot. After about 45 minutes, the GM begged us to please stop and we went on with the game. (He didn't make a ruling before that, because he wasn't sure either. He just gave up when he saw we were getting nowhere.)

The point is none of us really knew. A dire wolf does not actually exist, and the real "dire wolf" is extinct. Modern wolves and dogs are close enough, but they are both lighter and less strong. Plus, none of us were sure whether dogs can climb a tree or not either.

But if you're playing, say, D&D 3.5? The DC to climb a tree is 15. A dire wolf has +7 Str and no other relevant stats. There are no rules about quadrupeds climbing. (Assuming humanoids, the rules do say "You need both hands free to climb", so the DM still has to do SOME interpreting...but it can easily be hand-waved.) So, by the rules, the wolf (or the DM controlling the wolf) rolls a d20. If it gets at least an 8, it climbs up.(At a speed of 12.5 feet/move action.) If it gets 1-3, it falls back down. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not.

The players don't fight and the GM doesn't have to deal with that crap. Sure, if it fits the story, the GM can make a ruling and say the wolf climbs/doesn't, ignoring the rules. That raises the risk of players complaining, but at some point you have to accept the GM's rulings.

Now, if the GM is confident he can make fair and proper rulings all the time and the players believe that, you don't need any crunch. I've ran plenty of freeform games with absolutely no dice-rolling, and they were all very enjoyable. (They were usually stuff like Pokémon, where none of my players would dispute my call because they considered me the expert.) But if the GM doesn't have all the answers and the players are prone to arguing, crunch=crutch.

I completely agree I never fight about rules in 3.5 all perfectly clear cut and concise.

... whilst I agree that crunch can make things easier in some circumstances than something more rules lite, you never argue about rules in 3.5? Really?

If 3.5 was really totally clear, we wouldn't have had reams of FAQ entries; or a need for sage advice, etc. It's not a bad system; but it's not totally clear at points.

In reply to willvr (msg # 20):

I think they were being slightly sarcastic there.

Yes that was 100% sarcasm, I need to look up the video again that mentions arguing about the rules as a core part of playing D&D. However I think Flint is actually buying what he is selling.

In FATE the wolf would be able to climb the tree unless he got a compel on his being a wolf aspect to not be able to. Pretty straight forward.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 22):

Which is as nonsensical as the D&D 3.5 method of determining whether the wolf can climb the tree or not, when you think about it.

One method relies on dice, the other method relies on the game master's whim.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:49, Thu 30 Mar 2017.

In reply to pdboddy (msg # 23):

Difference is one is consistent and one relies on if a person you know likes you or not, got enough sleep, really wants to be doing this right now, cares if your character dies.

Since when do wolves have hands by either ruleset, anyway?

No one is dice, and one is if it was story relevant enough to hand out a point for. The wolf's character could always buy off the compel. For that matter the guy decided to play a wolf there is no way he did not see this coming.

Or from the other side it's an invoke for effect so it's a question of if you thought creating the climb a tree aspect would help you get away from the wolf. Since that is a question you are asking then obviously you do.

Hands are not required in FATE

In reply to RosstoFalstaff (msg # 24):

And neither relies on whether or not dire wolves can climb trees.  Does it matter, then, which one you use?

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 26):

Hand are not required?  Depends on the GM, I suppose.

If I have an aspect saying both my hands are cut off then I can do everything perfectly fine unless I get a compel to not do it. Some reason applies, but having such a huge disadvantage should be pumping out fate points pretty regularly.

If both of us forget I don't have hands then I contrived a way to climb that tree or open that safe or perform that surgery and you move on.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 29):

.... err see, that seems just as silly as any 3.5 rule you have. Whether you use rules-lite or something crunchy, some common sense has to apply. I mean, that's like saying that nowhere in the 3.5 rules does it say you need feet to kick someone...

3.5 isn't my favorite system, but I've long ago decided that whether a game is fun or not has less to do with the system exactly, more on the combination of that system with that GM and player.

This is very similar to the argument that keeps springing up stating that just because 3.5, or DnD in general, has lots of crunch to it, it means that 'real' role-players shouldn't play.

I am willing, with some notable exceptions, to play nearly any game with the right players.

You guys are getting into the weeds here.

Fate's Aspects are about granting permission to do things.  So Iron Man's suit allows him access to air zones, while Hawkeye doesn't have an Aspect that gives him permission to do so.

A wolf is not known for climbing trees.  It's not about hands, per se--since leopards climb trees--it's about which animals do have permission to do so.

I saw mention of "GM's whim" and I find that to be wholly inaccurate.  Maybe that's going to back to playing with a GM you don't trust, I don't know since I'd never do that.  (Still beyond me, as I'd rather not play at all. Whatevs.)

I didn't start the thread to brag about what system I like.  It really is trying to understand the mentality of why people like more crunchy systems.

What I'd love to see are some concrete examples of comparing a crunchier system with a less granular one.

In reply to willvr (msg # 30):

I agree.  It's part system, and part the people playing with it.

Sometimes there are silly things that happens, and you either roll with it, or agree with everyone else that "no, that's too silly, here's what happens...".

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 19):

Well if I were the DM, the only one doing the arguing would be the Court assigned Rules lawyer.  Though I would allow reminders to said Lawyer from the bench.  of course that would only be as long during play as the allowed time for summarizing the case.  After play any such Ruling can be appealed unless, ruled due to "constitutional clauses" "identity", "fun", Or "plotline/arc", though these can latter be appealed at the end of arcs, or to the Grand jury [DM, GL, and regular players].

I often mention (both because it's funny and very true) that my home group's most RP intensive sessions happened in D&D 4e.  That's not because D&D 4e is not crunchy (it was, by far, the most "miniatures wargame" version of D&D).  It was because combats in 4e took so long and were just generally so painful to do that we did everything we could to avoid them.

---

Anyway, on the general topic, a metaphor might help.  Let's say you have a few sheets of paper and a pack of crayons and you want to make a picture.

The first sheet of paper is completely blank.  This is your freeform game.  You can color absolutely anything you want within the loose confines of the "page".  This offers you a maximum degree of freedom, and absolutely no guidance.  Some people are going to love the freedom, and others are just going to stare at the page in indecision.

The second sheet of paper has a "connect the dots" style series of points on it.  You have some degree of guidance and some degree of freedom (depending on how many dots, whether they are numbered, etc.).  This is a representation of the various rules-lite systems.  The exact mix of guidance vs. freedom will vary by game, and different people will like different ones.  Still, some people aren't going to like this system because it's too restrictive and others aren't going to like it because it doesn't provide quite enough guidance to make a good picture for them.

The third sheet of paper has a normal coloring book line drawing on it that you can fill in.  You're free to color the picture however you want and maybe draw some stuff in the edges of background to add a little flare to it, but the overall picture is constrained by the line drawing.  This is a rules crunchy system.  Some people are going to absolutely hate it because they can't make the drawing they want with the lines that are there while others are going to love that they already have a framework for their picture.

---

In the end, it's all down to the things individual people find enjoyable.  For instance, I sometimes appreciate the submission type of fun (not that kind, you perv).  That means I enjoy a game where I can turn my brain off a little and just play the game.  D&D-type combat tends to be like that.  I know my abilities, I know my foes, and I play the game to make them  dead.  I don't get any of that type of fun out of a FATE game.  There's no "turn your brain off" in FATE since everything requires creativity and narration.

On the other hand, I sometimes get frustrated with the restrictions in particular games (the expression type of fun, mostly).  I can't build a character that does x in system y because it just doesn't work that way or the system, for whatever reason, values x very highly.  That's when I do find games like FATE appealing for the freedom they offer.

Further reading on the types of fun: http://www.gnomestew.com/gener...-eight-types-of-fun/

In reply to badpenny (msg # 31):

It's about hands insofar as the 3.5 rule quoted mentioned hands - "both hands free" and all that. I don't actually believe climbing requires hands and opposable thumbs specifically. ;)

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 34):

That is, perhaps, the single best metaphor for the Freeform/Lite/Crunchy spectrum I've ever seen.

My tastes have changed over time.

I started out many years ago in wargames (and I still like historical settings). Then I discovered D&D. Then I discovered Traveller. I spent many years deriving a lot of fun from creating houserules for Traveller, and using the rules to create vehicles, starships, weapons, etc. All very crunchy.

However, as time passed, particularly as I got more involved with PbP games, I increasingly found crunch to be tedious. Waiting for players to roll dice after dice after more dice, taking potentially a week or more to resolve a single round of combat, I found I wanted something quicker.

So I started looking at Indie games, cheap and cheerful games with simple and elegant rules, and I have become more involved with storytelling.

One long running game exemplifies this - it started out as a modification of the crunchy game En Garde!, but I gradually ignored more and more of the rules (because I simply couldn’t be bothered to adjudicate them) until it became effectively a free-form game with a few dice rolls to keep wish-fulfillment in check.

Most of my games now are ‘freeform plus dice’ because I don’t want the hassle of looking things up, working things out, waiting for players to roll dice, and making dozens of rolls myself.

These days, I want to shove a ready-meal into the microwave, I’ve had enough of picking eggshells out of a mixing bowl.

Maybe it’s GM burn out, maybe it’s just an age thing. :)