How Many of You Ignore New Cruch?

[Rocketeer]

I chose the "I don't use new rules" option, but actually my preferred option is not listed; this is just the closest one. I prefer no crunch (or very little) in setting materials, but that doesn't mean I won't use interesting new crunch if it's presented. I just prefer that the space be used for more geographical/etc. info.

 

[Shogun Jakalo]

Pardon me for asking, but what the hell is crunch?

 

[philreed]

Pardon me for asking, but what the hell is crunch?

Crunch is things like:

spells
feats
monsters
prestige classes


Fluff is descriptive text such as descriptions of an NPC (plus motives and personality), a description of some historical event in a setting, or just about anything else that doesn't present rules material.

 

[Li Shenron]

Specifically speaking of campaign settings, I think the non-rules material is much more important for me than the crunchy bits. Obviously, if it is done well the latter can be useful to make the campaign different also from a more mechanical perspective.

In a more general sense, I am feeling very tired of players material from any book nowadays. If the "crunch" in a campaign setting is made of variants or optional rules for the whole game, then I may be attracted, but not anymore in player material.

 

[Fenes]

I don't even use all of the crunch (spells, feats, monsters, prestige classes) of the core books, so I rarely if ever add more crunch from other books. Most of it is much too magic-rich for my FR-campaign anyway, especially the stuff from the FR books itself.

 

[Desdichado]

Some settings require a lot of crunch -- Midnight, for example. I love and use that crunch.

Some settings just don't require a lot of crunch -- the F'n Realms, for example. That kind of gratuitous crunch I can, and do, ignore.

Yeah, exactly. I don't like crunch for its own sake, I only like it when it really accomplishes something.

I think that in Eberron, the crunch is somewhat minimal and what there is really goes a long way towards establishing the feel of the setting, for example. Races like shifters, warforged, etc. are pretty integral to Eberron, as is the artificier class.

I also agree that a lot of the FR crunch does seem gratuitious; as if someone at WotC said, "we need crunch to sell this book, so make some up." That's quite a turnoff.

 

[BOZ]

would "don't really pay that much attention to" be the same as "ignore"? well, the first is more passive, while the second is more intentional. i'd say i fit the passive role there.

 

[Psion]

Fluff is descriptive text such as descriptions of an NPC (plus motives and personality), a description of some historical event in a setting, or just about anything else that doesn't present rules material.

I know lots of people define it that way, but I really sort of disagree. I don't think of pertinent setting informations (such as history, NPC motivation, area and cultural descriptions) to be "fluff."

Things like chapter-header fiction and in-setting quotes are, to me, fluff.

 

[Desdichado]

I know lots of people define it that way, but I really sort of disagree. I don't think of pertinent setting informations (such as history, NPC motivation, area and cultural descriptions) to be "fluff."

Things like chapter-header fiction and in-setting quotes are, to me, fluff.

True; when I first heard the word fluff, that's all it meant. Since the arrival of the crunch vs. fluff paradigm where everything in a sourcebook can be called crunch vs. fluff, that setting information still has to be fluff, though. It certainly can't be crunch, because it isn't rules related.

But I'd certainly be behind a third entry, one that actually makes up the majority of most sourcebooks specific to a setting, I'd think. Stuff that is really important to run the game, but which isn't rules. Fluff would be relegated to describe stuff like the really bad fiction sections that White Wolf books like to have in them. Get the word back to its roots a bit.

 

[fanboy2000]

I know lots of people define it that way, but I really sort of disagree. I don't think of pertinent setting informations (such as history, NPC motivation, area and cultural descriptions) to be "fluff."

Things like chapter-header fiction and in-setting quotes are, to me, fluff.

That makes sense, what you don't think of as fluff is the only kind of "fluff" I like. NPC motivation, world history, etc is the kind of non-rules material I like in large quantities, and it's sadly lacking from many d20 products, even 3rd party products.