It’s weird that the article uses the term “crunch” when talking about mostly about complex dice resolution since the games typically known for high crunch have very simple dice resolution mechanics. Complex dice resolution is usually tied to otherwise simple systems. I guess it’s not technically wrong though.
I agree. He’s conflating several things in that rant (not to mention doing quite a bit of braggadocio with his I KNOW SO MANY DIE SYSTEMS RAWR! segment) and it’s coming across as a bit incoherent.
To my mind “crunch” is about simulation, detail, and verisimilitude. This is independent of complexity. One of the most complicated games I’ve ever played is Powers & Perils, a game with so many crazily-different die rolls and mechanisms and procedures that it is, in my opinion, largely unplayable. Yet it’s so sloppy I’d never call it “crunchy”. Just horrifically bad.
On the other hand, Chivalry & Sorcery, in its current edition (5th), has, essentially, two game mechanisms: One is its “Skillskape” (sic) skill resolution system which is a very simple d% roll for success/failure with an extra simultaneous d10 “Crit Die” roll for outcome type. The other is its social influence system, again, fairly simple in actual use. Yet the game is strong on verisimilitude and crunch and is very complicated because its procedures are plentiful and omnipresent.
Addressing what I think is the main point of his rant, though, there are mechanisms that aren’t of interest for certain. I don’t like inconsistent crunch where some things are d% roll-under, some things are sum XdY roll high and others are roll XdY vs XdY and compare and … and … and …. C&S has two mechanisms while being one of the “crunchiest” games ever made (and the second mechanism is still a d% roll, so call it one and a half mechanisms), so you don’t have to throw every possible dice mechanism at the wall and write down each one that sticks if you actually design.
