Crunch vs. fluff in supplements

[Caedrus]

Earthdawn rocks!

I agree, Reynard. Earthdawn was an awesome game. I have been reading over some of my 1e ED books again, contemplating creating a similar type setting for Savage Worlds.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I'm heavy into crunch. It where I get the inspiration to write, rewrite, modify and create.

 

[GreatLemur]

I'm not really interested in other people's fluff.

EDIT: Actually, I should amend that: I'm often interested in reading other people's fluff. But I'm pretty much never going to use it (not directly, anyway), so I'm not too likely to ever buy fluff-dominant products.

 

[S'mon]

I voted 25% crunch, although 10% crunch would be fine. I like a little bit of crunch to give me an idea of how the fluff ties in to the rule system, but I don't want to be constrained by it. I especially don't want a setting/source book that's nothing but crunch, which has been common in 3e. Books like Relics & Rituals: Excalibur that claim to be a sourcebook (Arthurian in this case) but have no maps, NPCs, timelines or similar, being full of feats, prestige classes and magic items, I find completely useless.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I voted 25% crunch, although 10% crunch would be fine. I like a little bit of crunch to give me an idea of how the fluff ties in to the rule system, but I don't want to be constrained by it. I especially don't want a setting/source book that's nothing but crunch, which has been common in 3e. Books like Relics & Rituals: Excalibur that claim to be a sourcebook (Arthurian in this case) but have no maps, NPCs, timelines or similar, being full of feats, prestige classes and magic items, I find completely useless.

im with you 100% there man

 

[sinecure]

I voted Other. I think each topic requires as much fluff and crunch as the topic requires. And in the ratio it requires, no more, no less.

I hope that helps.

 

[Jhaelen]

I voted 50:50.

What I don't like is if the crunchy stuff is hidden somewhere within the flavour text (something that was kind of a trademark for the old WoD supplements).

I vastly prefer crunch to be a natural extension of the flavour rather than crunch without context or flavour for its own sake. ECS has been pretty perfect in that regard, imho.

 

[jaerdaph]

I voted "other" because it depends on the type of RPG sourcebook or splatbook. I'm going to want at least 50% fluff in a sourcebook tied to a specific campaign setting. In a generic sourcebook, I'm going to want at least 75% crunch.

On the fluff extreme, I love Green Ronin's Pirate's Guide to Freeport - 100% fluff.

On the crunch extreme, I'm down with the True20 core rulebook and companion (which I'd say are Ivory soap pure at 99.44% crunch).

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

It really depends. I miss the 2E flavor, and won't miss 3E in this aspect. I believe my answer is "no, thanks" to the generic flavor that populated 3E books, but I'd like to see a return to the flavorful setting sourcebooks of AD&D 2E. If 4E sticks to the flavor they're now presenting instead of the generics of 3E, I may stay with 75% background and flavor. Otherwise, I'll get the rules and build my own flavor, no problem.

Cheers,

 

[Pinotage]

In general a little of both, but it largely depends on what I'm after. If I'm looking for something that will support and adventure idea then perhaps something more fluff related would work. On the other hand, if I'm looking for something to enhance a character concept or monster idea, then crunch might be a better solution.

Pinotage