No more "fluff"!!! [A rant and a request]

[Mystery Man]

Wasn't there a "forbidden words" thread started a couple months ago? It must not have sunk in.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I will go against the "fluff" term if you join my crusade against the word "product" as a cool way of saying HAIR GEL!

Only if you get people to differentiate between gel, mousse, hairspray, and molding cream.

But I love saying "product"!

 

[mmadsen]

When used in a literary sense outside the RPG world, "fluff" refers to padding, or words/writing that have no real value but to fill space. Or, to quote the dictionary: "3. any light or trivial matter or talk."

I think that most people (not all, certainly) do find "fluff" light and trivial; they do find it to be padding.

I also think we need to draw a distinction between an interesting setting and pages of text describing that setting. Feats, classes, and spells with evocative names can convey a lot of flavor without pages and pages of fluff. Monsters and adventures can also convey a setting without encyclopedia entries. A few choice illustrations can convey a setting without prose.

 

[Ed Cha]

I agree "fluff" implies that it is not as useful as "crunch". I certainly would not want to read a book full of just statistics and game mechanics. In fact, I find text more enjoyable to read and helpful in understanding the story.

How about subsituting "fluff" with "chew"? The word "crunch" seems to imply that you get an immediate reaction with contact, while "chew" might mean you need more time to get the flavor and digest.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I like "fluff" and "crunch."

All rpg books contain information that assists in establishing a believable world, setting the scene, helping the reader truly understand what the writer is trying to get across in everyday language.

All rpg books contain mechanical, rules-specific information that is useful when making stat blocks, rolling dice, or other mechanical functions of gaming.

These two categories are different. We need some sort of terminology to distinguich them from each other. "Fluff" and "crunch" do the job just fine.

Can you imagine how dull it would be to read an RPG book with no fluff? It would be the SRD in hardback. No images, no interesting explanitory text, just raw rules. Boring. Fluff softens it up, makes it easier to digest. Fluff is gentle. I think fluff is a fine word to mean what it means.

 

[Frilf]

My uneducated vote is for "flavor" and "crunch", if we must perpetuate such silly terms at all. Really, what do food metaphors have to do with RPGs? Not much, really. So, I dream of a world where one day all these silly comestable phrases will be whisked (pardon the kitchen term there) away by the wind - scattered like so much chaff (excuse food refence) to the four corners of the world. For we gamers do not live on bread alone, but also by Doritos, Pepsi, pizza, and numerous other unhealthy munchies. Darn! I'm getting hungry!

But I digress. I think we should work together to eliminate the marshmallowy term of "fluff" first. Then, we can tackle the larger evil of using food metaphors to describe various aspects of our roleplaying supplements. Three cheers for Mouseferatu, our Imperious Leader! Lead us in the way to better RPG terminology!

 

[Altalazar]

I like "fluff" and "crunch."

All rpg books contain information that assists in establishing a believable world, setting the scene, helping the reader truly understand what the writer is trying to get across in everyday language.

All rpg books contain mechanical, rules-specific information that is useful when making stat blocks, rolling dice, or other mechanical functions of gaming.

These two categories are different. We need some sort of terminology to distinguich them from each other. "Fluff" and "crunch" do the job just fine.

Can you imagine how dull it would be to read an RPG book with no fluff? It would be the SRD in hardback. No images, no interesting explanitory text, just raw rules. Boring. Fluff softens it up, makes it easier to digest. Fluff is gentle. I think fluff is a fine word to mean what it means.

We already had such terms:
Mechanics and Flavor. And they weren't so cartoonish.

 

[ichabod]

Nice to see ENWorld asserting it's biases once again.

 

[Monte At Home]

I've never liked either term myself, because they imply sometimes unwarrented or even unintentional judgements. They also suggest that material has to be one or the other, which I think is a mistake. Something mechanical can, when done correctly, imply a lot of its own flavor.

"Crunch" can be attributed to Dave Gross, former editor of Dragon Magazine. It was probably about 1995 when he was telling his authors that he wanted there to be "crunchy bits" with every article. I think this eventually led to "crunch."

I'm not sure where "fluff" comes from, but I remember hearing it around the same time.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Wow, all this effort over a word...

OK, I personally don't care what terms people use, I just know that the key word in any good product is balance, and in reading reviews or rants or raves, I try and see if that balance is present. A book without "the things formerly known as Fluff" is boring. A book without the "things formerly known as crunch" is not very useful.

I bet all those people on the "What is 3e lacking" thread who say that 3e D&D is too generic and flavorless would probably agree that they like the non-crunchy bits.

Crunch = Heart of the game
Fluff = Soul of the game