Crunch and Complexity

Last week, consideration of the new HârnMaster: Roleplaying in the World of Kèthîra and a blog post I came across in defense of heavy rules sets got me pondering what constitutes complexity and/or crunch in a rpg. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, I feel like it might be worthwhile to differentiate them. 

Complexity I think speaks to the level of detail. Games tend toward greater complexity when they have one or more of the following:

• Multiple rule subsystems/exceptions to standard mechanics
• Multiple rolls required to resolve tasks/events
• Larger numbers of character qualities, particularly when they each have their own mechanics
• Figured/derived characteristics needed in play
• Tracking of multiple characteristics/variables
• Required consultation of charts

So what's crunch? I had initially thought of it essentially as math related: quantization, calculation, use of formulas, etc. Discussion with Ian of Benign Brown Beast made me reconsider. He viewed crunch as "character builds, optimal play, and interaction with the rules on their own terms (as opposed to thru the fiction)."

"Optimal play" and "interaction with rules on their own terms" are about approaches to systems, not the systems themselves, so I think those are separate phenomena. Perhaps they are a signal for the existence of crunch, though? Melding Ian's thoughts and my initial ones, I now think crunch relates to number of mechanical decision points within a system. This would show up on the player-facing side as character creation and tactical options, resulting in the potential for optimal builds in games like 3e D&D or Lancer. It also shows up in games intended to "realistically" (or at least consistently) model a wide range of genres or setting elements, like Hero System or GURPS.

In this way of viewing things, crunch can (and does) lead to complexity, but there are also factors that would lead to lengthier procedures but not necessarily options or decision points.