Out of the shower, my head full of thoughts. Have to write them down now.
___
When we were designing 7th Sea, one of the most frequent requests among the design team was “We should include this mechanic. It’s real crunchy.”
My typical response was “Crunchy is not a virtue.” Of course, this response did not win any hearts.
It was only years later that I realized what was happening. Vague terms like “crunchy” only made what was bad communication even worse.
When I read reviews and they use words like “crunchy” or “clunky” or even “elegant,” they aren’t communicating anything. The author has an idea what these words mean, but in the minds of the readers, they mean something completely different.
I ran a playtest of Houses of the Blooded last month at OrcCon and last Friday night here in Phoenix. I learned a lot from both playtests. But one thing I did not learn–a lesson I learned long ago that only became more clear–is that gamers mean very different things when they say “crunchy,” “clunky,” “smooth,” “elegant” and all those other vague adjectives.
For example. Ask 10 gamers to rate 10 games in terms of “crunchiness.” From 1 to 10. 1 being least crunchy and 10 being most crunchy.
- GURPS
- HERO
- D20
- Shadowrun
- Unisystem
- Pendragon
- Call of Cthulhu
- Burning Wheel
- Riddle of Steel
- 7th Sea
Go ahead. Rank them. See if we get any kind of concensus. We won’t, because gamers all have different ideas about these vague terms. Is Shadowrun more or less crunchy than 7th Sea? How about Hero and GURPS? Can you justify your claim?
Probably not. Asking someone how many angels can dance on the end of a pin is very different than asking them to prove their conclusions.
“Crunchy” cannot be measured, valued, weighed or even estimated. Neither can “clunky,” “smooth” or even “funky.” None of these terms have any inherent meaning. They’re just vague adjectives; shortcuts for a writer who doesn’t want to take the time to explain himself.
Let me say that again for those who are skimming: “Crunchy” is a verbal shortcut for a lazy writer who doesn’t want to take the time to explain himself.
The entire point of a review is for the author to illustrate to the reader the virtues and weaknesses of a game. To give the reader an idea of whether or not the game will appeal to him. A review is not a soapbox for you to espouse your theories of wrongbadfun.
A lot of people criticize Ron Edwards for trying to come up with clear and concise language for people who want to evaluate the technology of roleplaying games. I do not criticize Ron for this. I just don’t agree with his conclusions. But Ron is looking for a way for us to communicate in a positive, constructive way. Again, you may disagree with his conclusions, but you cannot criticize the intent.
___
Quick thoughts. Now, I’m off to talk about my new living space.