In my experience there are three major areas of player satisfaction in game design. Shiny stuff is the flashy art and conceptual pieces people like. Soft stuff is the interpersonal and character development issues that we see in rpgs. Traveller's service record and Cyberpunk 2020's Lifepath are excellent examples of Soft stuff. Crunchy stuff are the 'hard' nuts and bolts rules that people I call (and number myselfgenerally among) 'gearheads' love to work. Hero system and GURPS are the crunchiest games in print (in my never so humble oopinion). In discussing a new game idea with a friend I wondered something aloud, so here goes.

Can there be a compromise between simple resolution and crunchy design? More importantly is there a compromise between simple resolution and crunchy design? What do members of the forge think is an excellent example of something that allows a lot of customization but is very simple to resolve?

Sorcerer.

Sorry to toot my own horn, but that's exactly what the game is.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Sorcerer.
Sorry to toot my own horn, but that's exactly what the game is.
Best,
Ron

If what you're looking for is a game that is conceptually coming from the same place as Hero but has a comparatively simple resolution (i.e. crunchy but not AS crunch), I'd say Tri Stat or Cartoon Action Hour are contenders.

If you're looking for something a bit more radical, Universalis allows you to design as much detail as you care to. One can design a very detailed suit of battle armor using several different Master Components to represent sub systems (plug in the Hydro Fusion Drive which has these 3 Traits, and the BFG 3000 laser cannon which has these 4 traits), and even nest components within components in object oriented fashion to get to whatever level of precision and distinction one wants. Or it can be dialed all the way down to the entire battle suit being just a single trait.

Regardless the actual die resolution is pretty simple.

I'm not sure what you're actually looking for.

I'd dig it.

In terms of crunch, I am looking for ways to differentiate one character from another systemically. I want to play a fantasy game with a troupe of fighters all with the same level of, all equal in combat, differentintiated by fighting style, weapon chocie, and statsticial spread.

That (as I understand it) requires the following:
1. The resolution system must have several axis on which to grade the characters. Simply adding up good and subtracting bad probably won't do it. I want the faster guy to hit more often, the bigger guy to hit harder and be harder to take out, the axe to do chopping damage while the warhammer pierces, etc.

2. The diffenet axis must map to some kind of algorithm that gives an ordered set of rules for resolving them.

Together, this says crunchy to me. But I like the question.
-Marco

Interestingly I think ones take on this topic relates on one feelings about a tangental topic.

Namely, to what extent are rules supposed to teach or constrain.

For example: Marco I'll use your above post as an example because as I was reading it I was nodding in agreement, and then I said...wait a minute. Does this really require cruchy? That depends on ones take on this other thing which I post about now.

By education, I mean the extent to which the rules are meant to inform players on how things are supposed to work. Person A may not know the difference between the way an axe conveys damage vs. a warhammer. By haveing rules that map to different outcomes this player can still learn to employ his axe in situations where an axe would be desireable, or employ a war hammer in situations where a warhammer would be desireable...because he can judge from the rules what these situations are even if he's never heard of either weapon before.

On the other hand, if Person B is an expert in such weaponry, they already know the benefits and tradeoffs between an axe and a warhammer and even if the resolution mechanic provides absolutely zero distinction between the two mechanically, they are quite capable enough to simply choose to use and narrate their use properly.

At this point one could say "how many people really know the difference and would be able to describe it accurately". But conversely one could also say "how many rules sets get it right either". In other words, there are alot of rule sets which purport to create a seperate axis for distinguishing between an axe and a warhammer (or whatever), but do so with out any real degree of accuracy. At best they serve to make all of the players wrong in the same way (which falls under the second point below)


That of rules as constraints. In this case rules are there to set up parameters to make sure everyone is on the same page and to serve as barriers against abuse fron players who might act in a non desireable manner if not suitably contrained by rules. On the other hand, other groups are fully capable of solving both of these issues at the social contract level. If two players in the game have different ideas about how a warhammer and axe work one only NEEDS rules to get them on the same page if they are incapable of socially working it out for themselves (given the many arguements I've seen over whether there's enough room to wield a two handed sword in a 10' wide corridor, there are those who aren't capable)


So to get back to the point. If one feels that rules are useful to educate players on different things they should take into account in different situations, one can add crunch to the rules that require players to do so. If instead one feels that they are knowledgeable enough to take those things into account without rules; or perhaps feels they have no desire to take them into account at all because they don't find them interesting...they may well not want the added crunch forceing them to a particular interpretation.

One can see a similar arguement for rules as contraints.

So when Marco says

That (as I understand it) requires the following:
[snip]
Together, this says crunchy to me.

O.K., as long as people are putting forward their own games, let me suggest Multiverser.

The complexity of combat is customizable according to what the players (and referee) want to include. You can build a battle suit that provides cover value, ablative value, and built-in weaponry if you so desire (you can do so ingame as a player, if you want), and so make that part of the combat resolution thereafter. You can use specialized maneuvers if you wish.

Marco wrote: I am looking for ways to differentiate one character from another systemically. I want to play a fantasy game with a troupe of fighters all with the same level of, all equal in combat, differentintiated by fighting style, weapon chocie, and statsticial spread.

He further wrote: 1. The resolution system must have several axis on which to grade the characters. Simply adding up good and subtracting bad probably won't do it. I want the faster guy to hit more often, the bigger guy to hit harder and be harder to take out, the axe to do chopping damage while the warhammer pierces, etc.

He also wrote: 2. The diffenet axis must map to some kind of algorithm that gives an ordered set of rules for resolving them.

ross_winn wrote: Can there be a compromise between simple resolution and crunchy design? More importantly is there a compromise between simple resolution and crunchy design? What do members of the forge think is an excellent example of something that allows a lot of customization but is very simple to resolve?

Hero Quest is eminently customizable, like Hero System, yet has a very straightforward resolution system that can take any detail into account without adding any complexity. To me this is an infinite number of Axes per Marco's definition, but he may have problems with them not be pre-defined or something.

But then, the same is true of Sorcerer in some ways. How is it that you can't mechanically describe a battle suit? The GM just gives you more dice. Too much GM fiat involved? Are these systems to "outcome" oriented, and not "input" oriented enough?

It sounds a bit like you're saying that you want lots of complexity, but not lots of complexity. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I think we're all here struggling to see what you want precisely.

Mike

Hi there,

I'm with Mike. I'd rather not have the thread be about any one particular game (and I think all the games cited so far do qualify), but Sorcerer is mighty crunchy in your terms regarding demons' abilities, in particular.

What I'm wondering is whether by crunchy, you mean (a) Simulationist and (b) multiply-layered, in terms of my "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" essay. In which case, you're not talking about a game feature, but the results of a combination of features.

If that's the case, then we're in trouble ... because we can arrive at similar in-play results through different combinations. We can keep throwing out examples of similar results, and you can bat them down because although they do X, they don't do X the way you want it to be done.

Best,
Ron

We can keep throwing out examples of similar results, and you can bat them down because although they do X, they don't do X the way you want it to be done.

Maybe the next reply should be Ross' but I got mentioned a few times so I'll respond:

1. Ralph--I think I basically agree--but I'm not sure the rules are there to "inform" necessiarily--I want my axe weidling barbarian to be different but "just as cool as" my armored knight. Realistic? No--not really--and for *some* games that'd be a big deal--but in theory, I don't want any player with a trace of gamism (bad use of term) to play the same guy because that guy's the most/only effective one.

So I *do* want different axis for different effects if they'll make different characters equally effective in terms of system (but in a different fashion). As to the education point: I agree that if that's the concern then you're right (IMO).

2. MJ--Multiverser sounds interesting to me (really my preferences are more or less built into JAGS so when I said I was looking for a system that does that I meant in terms of "I like it when I see a system that does that.")

I suspect I'd like Multiverser.

The simple-to-complex issue (did I read you right? Up to 12 steps?) is a great assist in play. I also think it's interesting that character with the best chance to hit goes first. That speaks to timing in the case of a fight--but does a character with a short weapon get to hit before a character with a handgun (and really, I guess, does it matter--but I found that interesting).

Going from simple to complex is great--but if I want all the mechanical differentiation then I've gotta play at the most complex level--and I guess all I was saying was "I suspect that all that differentation will, in the end, be moderately "complicated".

3. Mike--I don't know about the original poster--but for me being able to describe something in detail is dfferent than the system representing it in detail. If my tank has a 120mm smoothbore cannon, a 50-cal, a 30-cal, and a flamethrower, how does the system distinguish between them? Just more dice for the cannon?

If so, that's cool--but it isn't that much *distinction.* The 30 is theoritically better at engaging infantry. The flame thrower sets up barriers, smoke fields, sets things on fire, whatever. The fifty doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as the cannon--but it has great range compared to the other weapons and a much higher rate of fire.

These are just some of the theoritical differences that might be involved in a "battle suit" style scenario. More dice may, by itself, not do it for a given person (and I'm not a hardware junkie although I play one on the internet--the tank's variety of weapons may not be integral to the story--but they *could* be--and if I'm doing a game where they are, systemic support is nice to have).

I'm not sure how Hero Quest would handle all that (give the 30 +1 dice vs infantry and the 50 some negative for fine-targeting? and the 120 would be hard to fire at a dude and have some rule saying it's slow to reload and has optional shell types and ... by the time you've gone and said all that, not only is the issue no longer what I'd call "simple" but the game rules aren't helping either. Instead of having a weapon on the list, you've gotta make it all up and figure it out in real-time).

I had the same issue with Flame Blast in Hero. One character took "not in space, not underwater, sets-things-on-fire, can-superheat/evacualte oxygen-in-a-confined space, etc.) Another guy says "it's fire: special-effect me baby!" and then, IME, if there *is* a problem, the system isn't helpful in giving guidance for resolving it.

-Marco

For Sorcerer, you can define as many advantages or criteria to a weapon as you like. Yes it's all handled with one system (that only considers how cool the things are that you're describing), but you can describe along any axis you like. So the other team has extra dice for having armor? Well, I have extra dice then for having armor piercing rounds. But, yes, that's only one mechanical description in the end.

In Hero Quest, you can define the same thing along as many axes as you like. A gun can have "Penetrating 3W, Good at Range 5w2, and Harsh 4w3". Keep piling the descriptions on until it's defined as well as you want it to be. Again, just one system, but it handles it all well.

What you seem to be asking for is subsystems. Which, frankly, seem pointless to me. If two systems have the same output for the same inputs, isn't the simpler system better? Isn't that what the thread is looking for? I think the problem is that people are just uunaware how to use these systems to simulate things.

I don't see what your problem is with Hero System. The powers as defined seem fine to me. And I never discovered a case that I couldn't resolve with the system, so it seems pretty "helpful" to me. I think I'm not getting the complaint.

I think a lot of this sounds like a preference for "input first" mechanics rather than "effect first" mechanics. Or input based simulation vs. output based simulation. Which is fine if that's what it is. But so far all we've heard about is "axes" and such which doesn't seem to be a problem for the systems mentioned.

Mike

Mike,

I'm not calling for sub-systems. Just to be clear on that. I'm suggesting that a certian level of detail usually/often evidences a certain level of complexity (even if it's just a paragraph of modifiers for the machinegun a la your Hero Quest example). Sub-systems are a potential way of encapsulating that complexity and, essentially, making it simpler (you say "heavy weapon" instead of listing a bunch of modifiers each time). There are others. Your examples all seem to get pretty complex by the time the tank gets statted out--at least as complex as anything else I've seen.

The lack of defined axises in the game books is where the system isn't helping (no cannonical Fire Blast in champions, for example).

-Marco

Marco, so as not to derail this topic, I'm answering your questions about Multiverser in a new thread, Simple to Complex Combat in Multiverser.

--M. J. Young

Ah, I get your point about help now, Marco. And I'd agree there in general terms that if you don't have a canonical version of something that you'll have to work it out yourself.

But given examples, I think it's pretty easy. And all these games have lots of examples. I mean HQ won't help you with machineguns but that's because it's not meant to be generic, but fantasy. In terms of fantasy, however, it gives so many examples that, IMO, adjudicating what somethig "should be" in game terms is nigh scientific.

For example, I learned from the book recently that a troll with a height of 6' 6" and 300 lbs. is mechanically rated as Large 15. From this I can figure out what all my Shadow World races will have as "avgerage" Large Abilities. No, there's no chart or anything, but it's simple math to figure it out.

Hero System 5th has multitudinous examples. It's a simple matter to create that Fire Blast from a near example with a couple of simple modifications (assuming that there's not a perfectly suitable example, which there often is). What the openess of the system does is to allow me to easily alter these things when I have a different vision of them ("Mr. Flamsy has a real narrow flame beam that tends to punch through things so I'll give it Armor Piercing"). I mean, exactly how much damage does a Flame Bolt do in real life? It's all guesses anyhow. For those things that are real, there are, in fact "cannonical" answers. .50 Cal M2 HB MG does 3d6+1 RKA (AP with the right ammo), etc.

So I'm not seeing a downside. I would agree that Hero is complex, however (that'll probably get a big Duh). It's just not that unhelpful, nor does it lack detail, IMO. Further, if you do like to wing it, it's even easier.


Hero Quest, OTOH, is simple to create things, and simple to adjudicate because everything uses the same system for determinations, and you don't have to learn subsystems.

But, I think that we can theorize that the simplest system would be like HQ in that it would use one system for all axes, yet it would give specific rules for their implementation statistically. Some systems I can think of get close, but I can't think of one exactly.

Mike

So I should reply, as an aside I stopped getting replies to this some time after the thrid reply. Since I only read the forge about once a week I missed a lot and I apologize. I should also explain a few things about how I design. In the simplest terms I generally do not use the GNS model in my descriptions because I feel that it is flawed. Not wrong, just flawed.

Basically I want something as mechanically diverse as Hero5; a mathematical model that will allow for a wide variation. Along with that a resolution system that is as simple and fast as possible.

ross_winn wrote:
Basically I want something as mechanically diverse as Hero5; a mathematical model that will allow for a wide variation. Along with that a resolution system that is as simple and fast as possible.