"Flavor" (as in "flavor-text"), does it irk you?

[Gez]

In French, "flavor" is usually translated to "(d') ambiance". Because "saveur" is usually clumsy outside of culinary discussions.

Maybe ambiance text would fit better ?

 

[MThibault]

Here's an idea: how taking that whole category of the stuff that has been called "flavor" and "fluff" and just calling it "roleplaying" or "gaming."

This isn't something I feel strongly about either way. It doesn't matter what anyone else calls it, I still play the game the way I like to play it.

But while we are being analytical, I think that calling the non-rules portions of the text "gaming" would be very innaccurate. The rules, mechanics, dice rolling, whatever you call them are the actual "game" part of an RPG. Without the rules-based task resolution system it's all just cops and robbers -- not so much a game as pure "play".

The problem with calling it "roleplaying" is that often you don't really "play" that text. You read it. It might inform your role-playing, but you aren't role-playing when you read it.

I like ambience, or ambience-text if you need to make sure people don't think you are talking about candles and background music. That really gets to the heart of its function, to set the mood and tone of the rules, or the context in which the rules will be enacted.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[jmucchiello]

"A Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"

The different terms used to bother me, especially crunch and fluff. However, I learned to live with them because it's just slang. I try to refrain from using them, but they are only words and they don't interfere with the game.

Technically Flavor and Crunch are RPG jargon, not slang. Fluff is perhaps slang because it is a derogatory.

Didn't any of you who hate the term flavor ever have a hippy dippy English teacher who, when you would make an excellent word choice in an essay, would call the word or phrase "delicious"? It boogled me in high school but it's easy to see now. Using a sense term as a superlative has lots of literary precedent.

Flavor and Crunch are actually perfect words since they share the same stage (the mouth) and imply different things. Since they are not opposites people can see them as things that can co-exist.

Joe

 

[Oni]

I think flavor is perfect for what we gamers use it for. Game mechanics by themselves mean nothing without it, and the same game mechanics with different descriptions setting wise can come across very differenlty. Simply put, they have a different flavor.

 

[Psion]

It really depends. There are two brands of "flavor": fluff and idea fodder.

Fluff is what you see in the slayers guides, much of the later Rokugan books, etc... laborious and exhaustive stories as if the author forgot that they were writing a role-playing game product and not a novel. Fluff delivers all too little value for the money AFAIAC.

Idea fodder is text like the descriptive text in a well written rulebook (say the class descriptive text in LE1, the spell descriptive text in R&R, and the plane descriptions in MotP: they deliver an idea with minimal overhead and don't try to deliver you a novella along with your book.

 

[bondetamp]

It really depends. There are two brands of "flavor": fluff and idea fodder.

Fluff is what you see in the slayers guides, much of the later Rokugan books, etc... laborious and exhaustive stories as if the author forgot that they were writing a role-playing game product and not a novel. Fluff delivers all too little value for the money AFAIAC.

Idea fodder is text like the descriptive text in a well written rulebook (say the class descriptive text in LE1, the spell descriptive text in R&R, and the plane descriptions in MotP: they deliver an idea with minimal overhead and don't try to deliver you a novella along with your book.

I call both of them fluff.

Just as I call both bad rules and good rules chrunch.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think someone's being a bit oversensitive about the term.

Flavor is actually a good thing, and I think it works as a term too. Without flavor the game is like a rice cake -- good, but bland. Not fun.

What has been prevalent to the 3e designers was that in 2e, people whined about there being too much story, too many "it has to be this and then this," and it was difficult to accomadate those who fit the mold.

So, as a base line with 3e, they lightened up the fluff to be almost nonexistant.

Then there was the recent SKR discussion, which gave rise to the term "crunch." (I could be wrong, but that seemed to be when it started). The opposite of something crunchy is fluffy...fluff.

I don't see any of these as real value statements that are deragatory or praising. Flavor adds dimension...fluff adds the flavor...they both probably need a good crunchy baseline to work from.

So "ambience" add the "enjoyable sensation" once one already has the "core rules base."

What's the dilly, yo?