What is a "Light" RPG? What is a "Crunchy" RPG?

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

A game is lighter the more of the following qualities it has:
-Low Page count
-Few/no mechanical character features, spells, or powers
-Focus on "freeform" or "write-in" features
-Single, Unified resolution system
-No modifiers, chart lookup, or math done with rolls
-No/few procedures and no defined play-loop
-Focus on one-shot/short campaign play

A game is crunchier the more of the following qualities it has:
-High Page count
-Many mechanical character features, spells, or powers
-Multiple, disjointed/different resolution systems
-Many situational modifiers, multi-step rolls, specific charts, or math required for rolls
-Large number of procedures requiring frequent lookup
-Focus on tracking/spending limited resources
-Focus on long-term campaign play
-Exceptions based design

 

[Umbran]

I don't think "narrative focus" is a requirement for rules light games, and some narrative games (like FATE) can be quite crunchy.

I don't think there was a suggestion that narrative games had to be light, just that light games tend to be narrative - the point doesn't have to be reflexive.

But, by all means, what "not-narrative" games do you feel are rules light?

 

[Umbran]

What do you consider a "rules light" RPG and what do you consider a "crunchy" rpg? What re the parameters? What are good examples of either? What games hiot the sweet spot for you as to level of light versus crunch?

I don't have specific definitions I work from. For the most part, for me it comes down to how many different rules details do you have to refer to in order to resolve actions or conflicts in the system.

So, some examples:
High level D&D 3.x is pretty crunchy.
Classic Deadlands is somewhere between Crunchy and Baroque.
Shadowrun is pretty crunchy.

Grant Howitt's One-Page RPGs (like "Crash Pandas" and "Honey Heist") are probably the most iconic rules-light games I can think of.
Fate Accelerated is pretty light - it fits on 40 digest-sized pages with lots of art.
Leverage (a Cortex-based game) is pretty light.

Some things that are debatable:
I don't find Fate Core to be particularly crunchy, because there are very few exceptions of the basic process, so the number of different rules bits you have to refer to is not large.

D&D 5e, Cypher system, most Cortex implementations, and Savage Worlds all seem pretty middling-crunchy to me.

I think Blades in the Dark and Powered by the Apocalypse (and perhaps Fate Core) games feel crunchier than they really are to start with, because their process of play is different enough to take a lot of cognitive effort for someone with many years of more traditional play under their belts, but they settle into a lighter feel once you are used to how they handle things.

 

[borringman]

I think Blades in the Dark and Powered by the Apocalypse (and perhaps Fate Core) games feel crunchier than they really are to start with, because their process of play is different enough to take a lot of cognitive effort for someone with many years of more traditional play under their belts, but they settle into a lighter feel once you are used to how they handle things.

I'm not sure "it gets easier after a lot of practice" is a point in its favor. One could argue the same thing about flying a spaceship.

Do TTRPG newbies find PbtA intuitive? As in, is it easy to pick up if you're not deconditioning yourself from years of D&D? It's an experiment I can't perform on myself, having gamed since the 1980s.

 

[Reynard]

In hindsight I should not have, that is why in the post after I said it is too little to go on. I did because it basically is the PbtA resolution system

PbtA has a middle ground (succeed at cost, or fail forward) that makes the resolution system narrative-adjacent.

 

[mamba]

PbtA has a middle ground (succeed at cost, or fail forward) that makes the resolution system narrative-adjacent.

I know that they are not binary. What makes a game narrative for me is leaving room in the rules for what the result of the roll looks like in practice. I agree that they tend towards more than two states, but that in itself does not make a game narrative or not. PF2 has four states as well, I don’t think anyone would consider it a narrative game

It’s not so easy to pin one thing down and say ‘this is what makes something narrative and its absence means it is not’, it will be a combination of things that determine it. Maybe there is the one thing for some games, but the core task resolution mechanic tells me nothing about narrative or not, light vs heavy

 

[Reynard]

I know that they are not binary. What makes a game narrative for me is leaving room in the rules for what the result of the roll looks like in practice. I agree that they tend towards more than two states, but that in itself does not make a game narrative or not. PF2 has four states as well, I don’t think anyone would consider it a narrative game

It’s not so easy to pin one thing down and say ‘this is what makes something narrative and its absence means it is not’, it will be a combination of things that determine it

Sure. And that resolution system is not all that makes PbtA narrative. But the fact that the non binary results are open ended is what does that. in PF2E, the nonbinary results aren't open to interpretation.

 

[mamba]

Sure. And that resolution system is not all that makes PbtA narrative. But the fact that the non binary results are open ended is what does that. in PF2E, the nonbinary results aren't open to interpretation.

they could be open as to what happens, even if binary, that is what makes something narrative.

This is a narrative chimera, see esp. the bullet points at the end

This one is not

Tell me what happens when the first one succeeds at 'belch forth flame', and then tell me what happens for the second one...

 

[Reynard]

they could be open as to what happens, even if binary, that is what makes something narrative.

This is a narrative chimera, see esp. the bullet points at the end
View attachment 374859

This one is not
View attachment 374860

Tell me what happens when the first one succeeds at 'belch forth flame', and then tell me what happens for the second one...

I don't know DW well enough to know what is implied by "Belch Forth Flame." Is that a Hard GM move? Is it something I am supposed to just make up on the spot? Are there rules for how much damage that sort of thing is supposed to do?

 

[mamba]

I don't know DW well enough to know what is implied by "Belch Forth Flame." Is that a Hard GM move? Is it something I am supposed to just make up on the spot? Are there rules for how much damage that sort of thing is supposed to do?

I don't know it well either, I think we had a similar discussion a few months back and it can be either a soft or hard move, the difference is the severity of what happens. Will see if I can find that.

My point is that it does not prescribe what happens at all, it leaves it wide open for the GM, and that is what makes it narrative.

EDIT: this is the discussion I meant

I'm not seeing the problem. When the GM is entitled to make a move, then if the fiction includes an ankheg it includes a voracious giant arthropod with an acid spray that eats away metal and flesh. This could inform a a soft move - "The ankheg sprays acid on your armour, which starts to fume and bubble - what do you do?" - or a hard move "The ankheg sprays acid at you, and your sword dissolves away in your hands - what do you do?"

Whether and what sort of move the GM is entitled to make is determined by the general rules of the game.