Fluff 'n' Crunch.

dead

Adventurer
I'm just getting familiar with these terms but I think I need some more help in grasping them.

Now, we can pick out some easy examples. For example: an attack bonus = crunch. The *look* of a halfling: whether it's hobbit-like or kender-like = fluff. But what happens when the very rules (the crunch?) alter the look, feel and story-stuff (fluff) of the game world?

Some examples from D&D:

Arcane/Divine magic divide
Spell-slots and memorization

Are these things fluff or crunch? On one hand they're rules (crunch?) but on the otherhand they're stuff that is *visible* in the world-setting and, thus, a part of the story (fluff?).

I'm sure there's more examples.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I add a third category: Crunchy Fluff or, more correctly, Adventure Ideas.

While not directly rules related, Fluff text that provides seeds for adventures is incredibly useful, as opposed to the other sort of fluff which just makes up word count.

Cheers!
 

Spell memorization is a good example of how the mechanics never changed, but the story elements ("fluff") did. They are no longer described as memorization, with the spell "burning" out of the caster's memory; now, they are described in a fashion closer to the way spell-casters work in Zelazny's Amber - spells are "hung" or prepared rather than memorized and lost. So a caster performs all of the spell EXCEPT for the last couple of key words and gestures. Mechanically, you're still picking from a list and checking 'em off when you use them, but storywise, it makes a little more sense (to me, at least).

The mechanics may narrow the focus (no Mage-Ascension-whip-'em-up-on-the-fly type of casting), but the story elements can still be varied.

As for similar rules elements, how about the magic item feats? You have to be trained in each type of item creation before you can actually do them, and you have to be a VERY skilled spell-caster before you can Forge Rings - Sorry, Mr. Frodo. :)
 
Last edited:

I prefer the word "flavour" to fluff, as, IMHO, it more readily captures the essence of the concept in contrast to "crunch". "Fluff" seems too dismissive for me.
 


dead said:
I'm just getting familiar with these terms but I think I need some more help in grasping them.

Now, we can pick out some easy examples. For example: an attack bonus = crunch. The *look* of a halfling: whether it's hobbit-like or kender-like = fluff. But what happens when the very rules (the crunch?) alter the look, feel and story-stuff (fluff) of the game world?

Then it's just called a good role-playing mechanic. 2nd edition was full of this stuff. Unfortunately, 3e has lost alot of that charm due to trying to simplify the rules.

I like 3e and I don't plan on playing 2e ever again, but it definitely has lost something in its translation to the masses.
 

Henry said:
Spell memorization is a good example of how the mechanics never changed, but the story elements ("fluff") did. They are no longer described as memorization, with the spell "burning" out of the caster's memory; now, they are described in a fashion closer to the way spell-casters work in Zelazny's Amber - spells are "hung" or prepared rather than memorized and lost. So a caster performs all of the spell EXCEPT for the last couple of key words and gestures. Mechanically, you're still picking from a list and checking 'em off when you use them, but storywise, it makes a little more sense (to me, at least).

The mechanics may narrow the focus (no Mage-Ascension-whip-'em-up-on-the-fly type of casting), but the story elements can still be varied.

As for similar rules elements, how about the magic item feats? You have to be trained in each type of item creation before you can actually do them, and you have to be a VERY skilled spell-caster before you can Forge Rings - Sorry, Mr. Frodo. :)

There's serious flaws to the spell slot exaplanation you may not have thought of. For instance, how does the final casting a fireball not set off all three you have memorized? Why can't someone else cast the final part of the spell? Why can't you just spend more time pre-casting more spells?

No, there's really not a good explanation for it other than it would be unbalancing to allow spells be cast willy nilly and it would be complicated to apply some other kind of system (I personally prefer a channelling system where the caster gets weak, akin to that presented in 2e Spells & Magic).
 


Chroma said:
I prefer the word "flavour" to fluff, as, IMHO, it more readily captures the essence of the concept in contrast to "crunch". "Fluff" seems too dismissive for me.

But "fluff" and "crunch" are more evocative of s'mores. Mmm...s'mores.

reanjr said:
There's serious flaws to the spell slot exaplanation you may not have thought of. For instance, how does the final casting a fireball not set off all three you have memorized? Why can't someone else cast the final part of the spell? Why can't you just spend more time pre-casting more spells?

No, there's really not a good explanation for it other than it would be unbalancing to allow spells be cast willy nilly and it would be complicated to apply some other kind of system (I personally prefer a channelling system where the caster gets weak, akin to that presented in 2e Spells & Magic).

I kind of liked the system in Earthdawn, which also used a pseudo-Vancian magic system in which spellcasters kept their spells readied in little astral constructs called spell matrices. You could cast "on the fly," but there was a pretty good chance it would attract the attention of one of the pseudo-lovecraftian creatures that haunted the astral plane, which was not a risk you wanted to take. The spell matrix concealed your spell so that you didn't have to worry about being eaten by an extraplanar monstrosity...any more than you normally did. Others could learn to percieve your matrices, and attack them to disrupt your readied spells, by taking the appropriate Talents (read: Feats).
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top