Adding A Little Crunch to Heroquest

[Deacon Blues]

I'd like to try and get my regular group hooked on HQ.  I just love the system, and my gamers seem tailor-made for a story-heavy style of play.  Most of them are professional improv comics outside of their day jobs, for instance: the ideas of "saying yes" and "story over character, character over kewlness" are their bread and butter.

But, they're also gamers, and they love their crunch.  Our current game of preference is 7th Sea, which provides a healthy balance between narrative-driven gaming and crunch (the powers of Swordsman Schools, sorcery, magic items like dracheneisen and puzzle swords).  I'd like to think that they're serious enough to make the jump to a game that's almost entirely narrative-driven, but, without crunch, they might not have anything to sink their teeth into ... if I may stretch the metaphor to its breaking point.

So - how can I add crunch to Heroquest?  Keep in mind that I'm not using the published setting of Glorantha in any way (I just don't like it; sorry).  If I incorporate any of Glorantha's magic rules as written, it'd be strictly the Theism chapter - I like the hierarchy of worshippers -> initiates -> devotees, and the way the powers unfold into feats and then lead to secrets.  I will be using most of the relationship rules as written.

I already have write-ups for several debate schools which teach different styles of rhetoric and persuasion, structured like theist pantheons in Glorantha.  That's somewhat crunchy for me (the benefits provided by debate school membership are pretty sizable), but I could use more crunch.

Suggestions?

[Mike Holmes]

Well, what constitutes "crunch" for you. I mean, we could start throwing things out there, but if you could give us, say, one example of something "crunchy" from one game, and where that's "missing" in Glorantha, then I think we might be able to help better.

Taking a stab in the dark, if by "crunchy" you mean "playing with a lot of detailed algorithms" I'd say that HQ can support that pretty well as is - it all depends on the GM to make it crunchy by declaring lots of detailed contests.

For instance, break down fighting into more discrete segments. Have a roll for every attack, and have that just be to determine if you hit. Then have another roll to see if defenses were penetrated. Then another to see how bad the injury was. Then another to see how badly armor was damaged.

For instance, Player A has his character attack Player B's character with his sword. Player A rolls his Swordsmanship against Player B's Sword and Shield as a defense. Let's say that A gets a Minor Success. The GM Narrates, "the blow connects solidly". Then player A rolls his character's Strength against the opponent's Breastplate ability (I recommend handling all equipment as abilities instead of as bonuses in this sort of situation) reduced by 10% for the good connection of the blow, and gets a major success this time. The GM narrates, "the strong blow is just beneath the breastplate rendering it uselsess. Then player A rolls his Strength again (each time these rolls are with appropriate augments) against the defender's Stout ability with a -50% due to the strength of the blow and the armor being no help. Player A gets a Complete Success this time, and the GM narrates, "The sword slides through important parts of the foe's anatomy, and he drops to the ground dying."

HQ can be as "crunchy" as you want depending on how you break up the contests. I suggest that you may find that in practice it's less fun to do all this detail every time, but preferences will vary.

In any case, is that the sort of "crunchy" you're talking about? If not, see my original comments about clarifying what you mean.

You may also be interested in Simon Hibbs' posts on the subject of Crunchy conflicts:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5828
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8336

Mike

[Deacon Blues]

Yeah, I suppose I am being kind of vague.

I define "crunch" as "that stuff that you read the sourcebooks for during your downtime, speculating how cool it would be if your PC had that stuff."  Using 7th Sea as an example, heroes can invest a sizable number of points in being a member of a Swordsman School.  You gain ranks in a Sword School (Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Master) by increasing that school's prerequisite skills.  So, as you advance, you gain the benefits of being a better swordfighter, since your skills improve.

The difference is, thanks to your Sword School membership, you also get a special bonus or attack at each rank of mastery.  An Apprentice of the Eisenfaust school, for instance, is skilled at exploiting an opponent's weakness, and gains a bonus to his next attack equal to the amount his opponent misses by.  A Journeyman can make a free attempt to break an opponent's weapon on a successful Parry or Bind, thanks to the large steel glove that all Eisenfausters wear.  A Master gets bonuses to his attack for holding that attack as long as possible, until the opportunity is perfect.

These special bonuses or abilities are ways that Swordsmen cheat the rules of normal combat.  They're the kind of "crunch" I'm looking for.

The problem with Heroquest - "problem" for my purposes - is its lack of crunchiness.  Look at two Swordsmen in 7th Sea, one of whom is a Master of the cunning, ruthless Ambrogia school and the other, a Master of the intimidating, flashy Soldano style.  Their abilities tell us that the Ambrogia master is good at exploiting mistakes for maximum damage, while the Soldano fighter blinds his opponents with a whirl of blades before landing an unexpected blow.  The Soldano would probably Tag his opponent several times, build up a pool of bonus dice, and then go for a definitive thrust, while the Ambrogia fighter might rely on stunning his opponent with a Pommel Strike and then following through with a vicious blow (Note: Tagging and Pommel Strike are examples of the aforementioned skills that a Swordsman must develop as prerequisites for his school's special powers).

In Heroquest, the first fighter would be represented as a hero with the abiilty "Ambrogia Fencing 5W2," and the virtues "Cunning 10W" and "Ruthless 17."  Similar numbers, with different labels, for the Soldano fighter.  An imaginative GM and players adept at storytelling could describe a combat between the two in the same way as the 7th Sea combat might pan out, but they'd need to work at it.  "Okay, Ambrogia, you gained 10 AP thanks to your bump on that roll.  You close in and smash the Soldano swordsman's temple with the hilt of your dagger; his eyes lose focus.  Soldano, your bid."

So I guess crunch takes some of the narrative burden off the players (and the GM), by embedding and defining in hard rules the effect of certain abilities.  At least that's how I'd like to use it.

[Mike Holmes]

That's an unusual use of "Crunch" in my experience. A lot of people refer to that as "splat" actually. For example, Seventh Sea has Splatbooks with rules like this in terms of several things starting with the nations.

I'd start by asking if you're playing the right game at all. I mean, to me it sounds like, "How can I add more of a certain sort of rules to a game that functions in it's normal state entirely without them?" The question is why would you want to? Or, more to the point, what is it about HQ that you do like that makes you think it's a candidate for this sort of alteration?

Because the answer to "What can I add in terms of Crunch?" is "Anything you like." I mean, nothing particularly stands out as being a good idea overall. I think that it would really depend on the setting. For instance, in the Glorantha setting there's a lot of theoretical "crunch" (actually I tend to think of it all as simply examples, and none of it hard at all) in terms of the religions and how to advance, as you've noted.  So the Crunch is comming from the setting.

In my conversion for Shadow World, I've added what you'd call "Crunch" in terms of rolls that substitute for the old Rolemaster Spell Point mechanics. In point of fact, however, I've never used them because they just seem ancillary to play. In any case, I can't really suggest them for you because I have no idea if they'd fit the system. Lastly, even if you did adopt them, you'd soon discover that they're merely a simple extension of the system sorta like my example above. I've never found any need to go outside that system.

I think that to proceed, you'd have to identify some areas from your world that need fleshing out. Then we could see what can be done. But what I'd ask first is whether you've tried playing the game as it's written? I get the feeling that you think that HQ play involves little rolling and a lot of making stuff up. It's really mechanically much more intense than that, at least when I play. If you're using all the rules that are in the book, you're pretty busy, IMO, and the players never need additional support in terms of "what to do next". The character sheet does that just fine.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't alter the game to your tastes, that's just fine. I'm just not convinced that it can't already meet your tastes.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

In a lot of cases the answer to adding crunch to HeroQuest is to keep some of the structural ideas of the game you're coming from, but let it work with existing HeroQuest mechanics. For example:

In Heroquest, the first fighter would be represented as a hero with the abiilty "Ambrogia Fencing 5W2," and the virtues "Cunning 10W" and "Ruthless 17."  Similar numbers, with different labels, for the Soldano fighter.  

You could do it that way -- however, if you're playing a swashbuckling game I'd say that "Ambrogia Fencing" is more like a keyword than a single skill. Under it are several skills, and those skills determine how good you are at specific maneuvers. Then you add to that a level of crunch by determining that there are school secrets that you get when a certain number of skills reach a certain level.

In otherwords, the school ends up working a lot like a Theism keyword with affinities (possibly feats as well) and secrets. If you want more crunch you could also set specific results for the uses of specific skills, and/or advantages for having a high level of the skill.

For example (and I hate using this one, but the only 7th Sea book I have here is Pirate Nations) the Rodgers fencing style in 7th Sea gives you Fencing and Dirty Fighting, with the swordsmen knacks: Bind, Corps-a-corps, disarm, and Exploit Weakness. It then has three special abilities that you get at apprentice, journeyman, and master levels.

Translating this "crunchy" over to HeroQuest becomes the character using a keyword to be a Swordsman, with the Rodgers Fencing keyword. The character then has the skills Cutlas Fighting, Dagger Fighting, Brawling, Balance, Dirty Fighting, Bind, Corps-a-corps, Disarm, and Exploit Weakness. The school then has the three secrets:

On Balance – when a character reaches apprentice level in all swordsman keyword skills (17) she can use her Balance ability to defend against any melee attack.

Pirate Duel – when a character reaches journeyman level in all swordsman keyword skills (17w) she can use her Sail skill to augment any defensive roll made on a ship at 1/4th rather than 1/10th ability.

To Sail a Road of Blood and Slaughter – when a character reaches master level in all swordsman keyword skills (17w2) she gains the Fear ability. Fear allows the character to have a free simple contest at the beginning of a fight (no penalty to the character for taking an unrelated action, it doesn't cost her an action) to intimidate anyone facing her in combat.

If you wanted even more crunch than that you could start giving the "swordsman knack" skills special resolution rules. So Disarm allows the character to disarm their foe with a minor victory on a normal AP bid (and a marginal victory causes the opponents weapon to be unbalanced, giving them a -5 to their next attack) – where a person without the Disarm skill would have to get a minor or major victory on a determined bid and gains no benefit (other than AP transfer, of course) from a marginal victory.  Tagging may allow the character to do a normal attack, but on any victory they can use the "7 AP for a Hurt" rule – but to Hurt a social or mental ability of the victim and without actually having to sacrifice the AP (so they cause the Hurt and keep the AP), if you want it to be especially nasty they may be able to cause multiple hurts or even worse injuries with increasingly large AP numbers. Throat Slash might allow the character who uses it as their final attack (the one that drops an opponent below 0 AP) to take them immediately to Dying despite what their normal status would be. (So if you drop your opponent to -1 AP using a Throat Slash action they aren't Hurt – they're dying cause you cut their throat.)

Despite the fact this is a long post none of the above was really difficult – it simply takes the 7th Sea ideas and puts them into HeroQuest rules in a way that shouldn't cause any problems. There are a lot of fiddly bits hidden here and there in HeroQuest (especially in the magic systems) that can be spun, folded, and mutilated to make your crunch work.

[simon_hibbs]

Brand has already touched on this, but my first thought was that HQ does have this sort of crunch, but almost exclusively in the magic rules. There's nothing to stop someone applying the same sorts of rules structure to other kinds of activity. Making 'Close Combat' like an affinity, or even developing different combat styles as affinities, is certainly one way to do it.

In HQ all the 'special sauce' in the game system is reserved for magic, but in another genre or setting it does't have to be that way.


Simon Hibbs

[Deacon Blues]

Brand:

Just what I was looking for.  Thanks!

Mike:

I'd start by asking if you're playing the right game at all. I mean, to me it sounds like, "How can I add more of a certain sort of rules to a game that functions in it's normal state entirely without them?" The question is why would you want to? Or, more to the point, what is it about HQ that you do like that makes you think it's a candidate for this sort of alteration?

I understand your concern / confusion.  I want to introduce the group to Heroquest, as I said, and gradually introduce them to a more improvisational, narrative-centered style of roleplaying.  7th Sea to Heroquest raw is a bucket of sea water to the face, yet I want to immerse them gradually.

You're right; there may be a better game for my purposes: Talislanta, for instance, which abstracts a great deal of action resolution into a single system.  But I'd like to see if it can be done with HQ.

In my conversion for Shadow World, I've added what you'd call "Crunch" in terms of rolls that substitute for the old Rolemaster Spell Point mechanics. In point of fact, however, I've never used them because they just seem ancillary to play. In any case, I can't really suggest them for you because I have no idea if they'd fit the system. Lastly, even if you did adopt them, you'd soon discover that they're merely a simple extension of the system sorta like my example above. I've never found any need to go outside that system.

Of course.  I think a system like HQ really illustrates how much crunch can be a crutch (forgive the pun; it makes sense in a moment).  If you define an ability broadly enough - instead of a handful of set maneuvers, you have "Sword Fighting" - and have a professional group that knows how to build a good story, you don't NEED the rules that tell you who can do what when.

At the same time, though, plunging into a system with no rules is often shocking.  My (limited) experience doing improv has taught me something I often repeat to other performers or roleplayers: "a complete lack of boundaries is the enemy of creativity."(*)  You read that right.  Put two people on stage and tell them, "Give me a scene."  You'll get ten seconds of blank stares, then a scene that starts out painfully slow for the first minute before someone takes a real risk.  Coach them, instead, to "give me a scene on a playground," or "give me a scene between two feuding lovers," and you get acting.

Similarly, let's say my Ambrogia Fighter rolls a major success in an extended contest of his Fencing against an opponent's Fencing.  How do I describe that?  Well, Ambrogia is a sneaky, cunning school, so perhaps he slides in off a parry and hip-checks his opponent ... but I just used that description.  Perhaps ... and so on; valuable game time is being wasted as I rack my brain for creativity.  If he was using a Pommel Strike maneuver, however, then my options diminish - and my potential for creativity expands.



(*) I'm half-convinced I read this somewhere else, but I don't know.

[Mike Holmes]

I understand your concern / confusion.  I want to introduce the group to Heroquest, as I said, and gradually introduce them to a more improvisational, narrative-centered style of roleplaying.  7th Sea to Heroquest raw is a bucket of sea water to the face, yet I want to immerse them gradually.

Hmm, not perfect, but close; I'm going to throw one of my rants at you that I think may pertain somewhat. May just be food for thought. Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode.

You're right; there may be a better game for my purposes: Talislanta, for instance, which abstracts a great deal of action resolution into a single system.  But I'd like to see if it can be done with HQ.

I think that you are going to the right system, now. I just think that the little steps you're using aren't important. Your players aren't dumb, are they? They'll get it. In any case, what I bet happens even if you include all the extra crunch, is that you find yourself not using it anyhow. More on why later.

I think a system like HQ really illustrates how much crunch can be a crutch (forgive the pun; it makes sense in a moment).  If you define an ability broadly enough - instead of a handful of set maneuvers, you have "Sword Fighting" - and have a professional group that knows how to build a good story, you don't NEED the rules that tell you who can do what when.

I sort of agree with you. It's just that I don't see HQ as freeform at all. In fact, I'd hazard that I use the rules in HQ more than I do in many other games. Freeform games are difficult - which is why we all here are interested in systems to help. HQ doesn't get away from that. It's not hard to play. It doesn't require any more creativity than any other game does to play. Novices find it very easy to play - I've introduced a couple of people who were new to RPGs to HQ, and they got it with no problem.

At the same time, though, plunging into a system with no rules is often shocking.  My (limited) experience doing improv has taught me something I often repeat to other performers or roleplayers: "a complete lack of boundaries is the enemy of creativity."(*)

If you read my work here, you'll find me saying the exact same thing over and over. It's almost a maxim here on The Forge. The question is to what extent is it important to narrate a particular fact.

Similarly, let's say my Ambrogia Fighter rolls a major success in an extended contest of his Fencing against an opponent's Fencing.  How do I describe that?

How about "You hit him hard."

See, in adding that "crunch" you tell the players that it's important to know exactly what sort of maneuver happened. When, in reality, HQ isn't at all about where the character was wounded. I mean, there's no reason not to add those details if it tickles your fancy - and I do so all the time. You'll find, I think, that the penalty feedback, the -50% injury, really is an effective constraint on describing the result. What'll happen is that you'll end up doing it in a ton of different ways, instead of being constrained to what would "really" happen with a pommel strike. The point is that the constraint that you're putting on doesn't "free" you to narrate anything that's particularly important to HQ play. You're changing the focus from things like Personality traits, and Relationships, to sword schools.

Which is fine if that's what you want. But I think that what you're missing is that, in actual play of the system, I think that brain dead fungus could come up with the appropriate narration without problem.

Example: Character is using his Ambrogia Scool 5W augmented by Hates Count D'Monet for +2, Quick Reflexes for +2, Rapier Wit (insulting his opponent as he goes) for +3, Determined for +2, Brave for +2, Follower Armand (watching his back) +2, a Sharp Sword Charm for +1, and a previously cast spell, Fight Furiously for +2. For a total of 19W.

The player rolls and gets a major victory. I narrate, "Insulting his mother, you deftly assault the Count with blows made strong from your determination to get him. You bravely dodge a counterassault, and Armand saves your neck from the result of the combo that follows. Aided by your magic, you finally manage to put your sword through his leg, ending the fight. The Count bows to you in defeat."

That was easy stuff. None of it required much creativity at all. In part because, every idea came straight from what was used by the player. But it's all still fascinating narration because it's all about the character.

Actually, in play I'd probably just say, "You battle back and forth insulting him, and with the help of Armand, magic, and your determination to off him, you manage to put your sword through his leg."

Basically, the declarations take care of the description themselves to an extent. That is, if you just declared your action, and rolled, and I announced, "You manage to put your sword through his leg after a hard fight," that's all good because the player saw where things were coming from.

Narrativism doesn't mean that narration is promoted. This is a common fallacy. Play of HQ doesn't neccessarily promote really great descriptions of the action. It doesn't have to. The use of the mechanics alone provide the context for the action. That's not to say that you can't narrate to your heart's content on top of that...just that it's all gravy. And very easy, because the complex mechanisms of the game have served to allow the player to make his statement. In the example, his statement is clear, though very complex. The player is saying that his character hates the Count enough to injure him at least, and that he'll do so in a brave, determined manner using the magic that the setting provides, etc, etc, etc.

You'll find the HQ mechanics will automatically propell you through more "plot" than you're used to going through, all because you're not dwelling on pommel strikes and the like. Instead what the everpresently supportive system does is enable players to make decisions that affect the plot. And it's support of that creativity that will fill your sessions of play.

So, I see the crunch that you're adding as distracting from what is already a far more supportive system than you apparently think it is. Am I being clear? I don't think that your additions will harm the game much, actually - I think it's too resilient an engine for that. But I wonder why the effort when it's fine as is.

Have you played, or observed play? Want to stop by my online game on Friday? I think seeing it in action might make you see what I'm talking about. I'm no master narrator (despite IRC giving you every opportunity to flourish), and neither are my players - well, Brand, maybe. The point is that you don't have to be. It's not the narration that drives the game, but rather the choices that the abilities present to you.

Were you ever a D&D player? Ever note that, even in a game where the GM couldn't narrate his way out of a paper bag, play still went on just fine? I mean it might be ugly, but the players never were at a lack for what to do next, there was always another monster. HQ is like that in that there's always some ability calling out to be messed with on the character sheet. Players never founder on what to do because of this. Unlike D&D, however, this leads to thematic play. If you can narrate on top of that, well, then I think your play will be spectacular. No extra crunch needed.

Mike

[Alai]

Brand has already touched on this, but my first thought was that HQ does have this sort of crunch, but almost exclusively in the magic rules.

I think very true.  A lot with magic, a bit with combat and relationships, tiny fragments otherwise. Which is a pretty good 'telll' for the expected focus of the game, I suppose.  Even in Glorantha this doesn't seem an invariant, though:  discussing the prospect of Kralori martial artists (whether with 'no' magic, m*st*c*sm, or whatever...) I found it rather difficult to imagine without a similar amount of chrome/crunch/colour (to cover a multiple of sins).

Conversely, I find it somewhat odd that conversions of HQ to other genres/worlds seem to take on board so _much_ of the 'crunch' in HQ that's presumably by intent specific to Gloranthan magic. Other than the convenience of reuse, there's no real _need_ to have that (same) crunch, for the sakes of using the core system, surely.

Cheers,
Alex.

[Mike Holmes]

Conversely, I find it somewhat odd that conversions of HQ to other genres/worlds seem to take on board so _much_ of the 'crunch' in HQ that's presumably by intent specific to Gloranthan magic. Other than the convenience of reuse, there's no real _need_ to have that (same) crunch, for the sakes of using the core system, surely.

Personally, I retained the magic as much as possible because the methods that HQ uses, despite it being theoretically Glorantha specific, because I think that they portray a more "deep" or "realistic," as it were, portrayal of the way magic should work in a fantasy environment.

That said, I've adjusted it somewhat where neccessary, and my crunch is slightly different from the standard HQ crunch (see the relevant thread on Magic for Shadow World on this thread for details). But if I'd modified it any more that would have been creating entirely new crunch, and that would have entailed more work, and wouldn't have been useful, IMO.

Mike

[Alai]

Personally, I retained the magic as much as possible because the methods that HQ uses, despite it being theoretically Glorantha specific, because I think that they portray a more "deep" or "realistic," as it were, portrayal of the way magic should work in a fantasy environment.
Mike

That certainly makes sense:  if one's setting "crunch priorities" are much the same as Glorantha-HQ's (can we say 'GHQ', or is that taking miliitary acrostics that step too far?), and the nature of the magic itself, or the things one wants to 'do' with it in-game, are similar, no need to reinvent (or deinvent) the wheel. In broad terms I wouldn't even have said it was _specific_ to Glorantha, certainly as regards general concepts like 'affinities', which are at bottom more of an alternative way of structuring abilities than any deep Gloranthan Simulationism.

My comment was motivated by the (possibly unfair) perception that there was a tendency to 'lift' certain crunch, or whatever you want to call it, out of GHQ, into other applications, in a way that one generally wouldn't contemplate adding 'new' crunch.  (And I must admit to to having looked at any of said adaptations in enough detail to say this is anything more than a general impression.) My suggested moral I suppose being, "examine one's assumptions and priorities before doing so".

Cheers,
Alex.

[Mike Holmes]

That certainly makes sense:  if one's setting "crunch priorities" are much the same as Glorantha-HQ's (can we say 'GHQ', or is that taking miliitary acrostics that step too far?), and the nature of the magic itself, or the things one wants to 'do' with it in-game, are similar, no need to reinvent (or deinvent) the wheel. In broad terms I wouldn't even have said it was _specific_ to Glorantha, certainly as regards general concepts like 'affinities', which are at bottom more of an alternative way of structuring abilities than any deep Gloranthan Simulationism.

And just to be clear, they aren't precisely the same, but where they differ, the Gloranthan aesthetic is just superior in my mind. In Rolemaster, there's a lot of emphasis on gaining spell points, but never any question of what that means in terms of the character's beliefs. Should an apostate of a god be able to gain in ability in channeling that god's power? The RM system is silent, while HQ is about that and so much more that makes "sense" to me. Magic shouldn't be about gaining power so that I can blast monsters and take their stuff, it should be about beliefs, and the ramifications of the use of power.

I feel that the setting in question is vastly improved by using the HQ rules in that it means that certain parts of fantasy play that I think are supported by the setting, but not by the RM system become enabled by the new system. The feel of play is 180 degrees different, and far more what I always wanted out of the setting.

My suggested moral I suppose being, "examine one's assumptions and priorities before doing so".

Indeed. But given the shoddy work in most RPG settings of emulating magic because of the effects of the system, I hardily recommend "lifting" the HQ portions that make sense for the setting to enable it as best possible.

Mike

[Alai]

And just to be clear, they aren't precisely the same, but where they differ, the Gloranthan aesthetic is just superior in my mind. In Rolemaster, there's a lot of emphasis on gaining spell points, but never any question of what that means in terms of the character's beliefs.

What I was trying to get at though, wasn't HQ's 'crunch' vs. some other systems 'crunch'. (And I'd no idea whatsoever that the Other System might the RM -- the very marrow chills!) Rather, I was trying to point up the choice between "crunchy theist" (say) rules of HQ vs. the core mechanic of generalised 'abilities' (which you can in principle use to describe anything, magic or not), vs. some other type of 'crunch' one might embed into the overall HQ  framework.  If magic were a relatively minor part of the game-world and/or not a chosen focus for in-game Exploration it might make sense to bin all the 'crunch', and just take a 'write down ability tags for your magical effects' approach. If some other facet of play were to merit the pre-eminence that magic gets in 'GHQ', it'd seem meritted to throw more 'crunch' at it, _even if not strictly necessary_, for the sakes of underlining that.

If 'crunch' is even the appropriate terminology and accurate analysis of the existence of various rules in HQ.  I wouldn't necessarily be betting heavily, in all cases...

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, agreed. If I had run a spy game in which there were people with psychic powers as a tacked on addition, then I'd be remis in trying to adapt some of the crunchy mechanics of magic to it, and, if anything, I'd be finding crunch in the spy game part of things somehow.

Our points are the same then - ons should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

Our points are the same then - one should only add crunch where one wants to see deeper exploration of those elements.

Such as swordsmanship styles in a swashbuckling game?

I don't think Deacon's orriginal idea was so far out as many others seem to. I do think that adding crunch just for crunch isn't a good thing, but I do think that giving a system that puts character development and "neat" focus on areas that are important to the game is important. Were I to do a Transhumanist fantasy game, for example, there would be major crunch added to make a racial types system -- becuase exploration of those themes would be a large part of what I was interested in from such a game.