💦 CREATE AND FUCK YOUR OWN AI CUMSLUT 🔥 TRY NOW ♥
Create AI Cumsluts 💦
August 6, 2025

How crunchy are my games?

Today we were having another interesting conversation about RPGs in the Blackoath Discord, this time (again? I feel we talk about this often) about what is a crunchy game, and which games are crunchy. This all started because apparently the new hotness, Draw Steel, is quite crunchy (which means I'll end up with a copy sooner or later). It's no secret that I lean towards the crunchy side of the crispy-crunchy spectrum, but there's no official definition of what a crunchy game is (I mean, who would have the authority to make an official definition anyway?), so when someone says this or that game is crunchy, it's largely subjective. I find that what many call crunchy, it isn't for me, but that's just because my baseline is Rolemaster (another game that I personally think isn't that crunchy; just cause you have to look up numbers in tables it doesn't mean the game's hard to play). But yeah, the bottom line is that, for most, crunch equates difficulty.

So I went to see what the collective wisdom had to say about the subject, and came across this nice article. I may or may not agree with all of it (I personally don't think that if a game has a lot of character options it means it's difficult or crunchy, since most of the times you'll just interact with that aspect once, while creating your PC), but I do like the idea of approaching a game's crunchiness in matrix format, instead of linearly. The post's author establishes these variables as the key elements to find out how crunchy a game is:

Power of Powers: Measures how varied and potent character abilities are, ranging from mundane talents to godlike powers. I don’t think this adds to the complexity of a game, at all, but still, I’m trying to be neutral. A few examples would be:

  • 1: No powers (e.g., Fiasco)

  • 3: Minor abilities (e.g., Ten Candles)

  • 6: High-tech enhancements, but no magic (e.g., Cyberpunk Red)

  • 10: Divine-level powers (e.g., GURPS god-mode)

Powers Complexity: Rates how easy or hard it is to understand and use the powers within the game. Now, this I could consider contributing to a game’s level of crunchiness. Low complexity would be one or few powers, easy to grasp (e.g., Paranoia), while high complexity would be massive lists or freeform systems requiring deep interpretation, stuff like Ars Magica or Mage: The Ascension, or I suppose Rolemaster.

General Rules Complexity: Evaluates how difficult it is to learn the core gameplay mechanics outside of combat. This definitely matters when determining if a game is crunchy, in my opinion. This scale highlights:

  • 1: Simple roll-under mechanics (e.g., Dragonborne)

  • 4: Slightly more nuanced with modifiers (e.g., GURPS)

  • 7: Mixed dice pool and layered resolution systems (the blog post mentions Overlight, which I’m not familiar with)

  • 10: Dense charts and rule types (e.g., 1st Edition D&D, and I suppose Rolemaster)

Combat Complexity: Rates how involved and detailed the game’s combat system is. The scale would be:

  • 1: No combat mechanics; story-driven resolution (e.g., Fiasco)

  • 3: Basic attack/dodge/damage rules (e.g., Dragonborne)

  • 5: Added options when dealing or receiving damage (e.g. Savage Worlds)

  • 10: Highly detailed, tactical systems needing maps and charts (e.g., 4th Edition D&D)

Narrative Complexity: Indicates how much the game focuses on story versus combat mechanics. I would actually flip this scale, because to me it makes sense that a higher number means more Narrative Complexity, even if the original blog post does it the other way around:

Scale Examples:

  • 1: Combat-heavy, limited non-combat systems (e.g., D&D)

  • 4: Story-focused with robust combat rules (e.g., Vampire: The Masquerade)

  • 7: Balanced between narrative and combat (e.g., Dune RPG)

  • 10: Story-first, rare combat (e.g., Dialect)

Okay! So with all these parameters in mind, I think it would be fun to rate all my games, since this is actually something a few people have asked me about in the past. I'm skipping Warlord Ascendant and Carnage & Aether, since those are skirmish games. Let's see!

Across a Thousand Dead Worlds

  • Power of Powers: 2

  • Powers Complexity: 1

  • General Rules Complexity: 7

  • Combat Complexity: 9

  • Narrative Complexity: 7

Riftbreakers 2e

  • Power of Powers: 7

  • Powers Complexity: 9

  • General Rules Complexity: 5

  • Combat Complexity: 7

  • Narrative Complexity: 7

Broken Shores

  • Power of Powers: 2

  • Powers Complexity: 4

  • General Rules Complexity: 7

  • Combat Complexity: 7

  • Narrative Complexity: 6

Sacrifice

  • Power of Powers: 1

  • Powers Complexity: 1

  • General Rules Complexity: 5

  • Combat Complexity: 5

  • Narrative Complexity: 6

Under Ashen Skies

  • Power of Powers: 1

  • Powers Complexity: 1

  • General Rules Complexity: 7

  • Combat Complexity: 5

  • Narrative Complexity: 6

Ker Nethalas

  • Power of Powers: 8

  • Powers Complexity: 7

  • General Rules Complexity: 7

  • Combat Complexity: 8

  • Narrative Complexity: 2

Ruthless Heavens, Boundless Fate

  • Power of Powers: 9

  • Powers Complexity: 9

  • General Rules Complexity: 5

  • Combat Complexity: 5

  • Narrative Complexity: 6

Salvage & Sorcery

  • Power of Powers: 6

  • Powers Complexity: 4

  • General Rules Complexity: 4

  • Combat Complexity: 6

  • Narrative Complexity: 2

Machine Gods of the Noxian Expanse

  • Power of Powers: 1

  • Powers Complexity: 1

  • General Rules Complexity: 4

  • Combat Complexity: 4

  • Narrative Complexity: 4

Choir of Flesh

  • Power of Powers: 8

  • Powers Complexity: 2

  • General Rules Complexity: 6

  • Combat Complexity: 8

  • Narrative Complexity: 6

So there you have it! What do you guys think? Do you agree with my ratings?

Comments (2)

D
Darthus · August 7, 2025

For me "crunchy" is two fold, it implies mechanical depth (ie how rich are the mechanics to enable a variety of interesting and tactical elements), but it also implies general complexity, as you mention. I think in common parlance, it just comes from a felt sense of "is this game complex?". For me, that felt sense arrives from, "How many rules and systems do I need to know before I can actually sit down and play this thing?". I'm more of a narrative/exploration/roleplaying motivated player, though I appreciate a LOT of guidance (with freedom to express my character/explore). In my experience with your games (I've played Broken Shores... sorta, read through Machine Gods, and am familiar conceptually with Ker Nethalas - fighty dungeon crawling, Riftbreakers - MMO loot inpsired and Across a Thousand Dead Worlds - sci-fi horror exploration), I'm actually a bit torn. I absolutely LOVE your creativity in world creation (huge fan of Dark Fantasy), every single one of your games is wildly thematic, the worlds invite me to be curious and learn more about them, but then when I sit down with the rules and try to play them (solo), I often get mired down in statistics and systems and my "time to play" (and get into the narrative and exploration) is longer than I'd prefer. With Broken Shores for instance, the very complex character sheet, the sailing/boat management etc all sort of acted as barriers for me to just get going. I think one thing that can aid with complexity (and retain depth), is to have a really rich and smooth learn to play or tutorial. It's sadly uncommon in ttRPGs, but I think your system can be as complex as you want really as long as you give someone an interesting, thematic and clear onramp to those systems. Also, the games that are truly streamlined I think go through every statistic and and thinks, "How critical is this to the overall experience/how many systems/experiences are dependent on this thing" and if it's low, cut it or merge it into something else. I really respect the work that you do, and sort of watch from afar for when a game might come out that hits that "sweet spot" for me thematic/world detail, depth, structure (especially for solo), accessibility and narrative. I personally don't need a lot of stats to do all that, simple skill checks are often enough, but structure, the "how do I get from opening the book to playing and exploring" is key. Hope that helps!

O
Order of the Black Oath · August 7, 2025

Thanks for your input! I do try to cut unnecessary systems, and Riftbreakers 2e is an excellent example of that, when you compare it with 1e. I got rid of attributes, consolidated skills, crafting materials, and the whole crafting process, made exploration clearer... Overall, I managed to streamline the game but not lose anything of what made it unique. I hope I can continue this same approach with all future games, now that I am much more experienced as a designer. I look back at games like Broken Shores and realize there's a lot of things I could streamline and fix now! What did you think of Machine Gods? I do think it's pretty simple, rules-wise, but offers structure.