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

[Treebore]

The problem is Fluff has a legitimate usage, based on the interpretations of the reader. Even if the writer intended for their words to be "flavor", if the reader interprets it as useless drivel to pad the word count of the book, then it is "fluff" to that reader. So "fluff" still has a legitimate usage, just like "flavor" does. It just depends on how the individual interprets the material being discussed.

I agree that "flavor" should be the term used when you think the text was well worth reading.

I agree that "fluff" should be used when you think the text was made up just to increase the word count.

Both types of text do exist in RPG products. Sometimes the same text is described with both words, dependent upon the opinion of the person using the word.

As for Munchkin, I didn't know part of its definition meant you broke the rules or "went against the logic of the rule". Now I will have to be offended whenever anyone calls me a munchkin player.

Up to now I thought being a Munchkin was refusing to play a character that had lousy stats. A character that I wouldn't enjoy showing up to play. Who am I playing this game for? Me, the other players, or the DM? I always thought I was playing this game for me to have fun, not according to someone else's standards.

Granted, I also play so that others around me can also have their fun. That is also how I run my games when I DM.

I also run the game with the rules being intelligent guidelines that are generally good to use. They are not the definitive guide to running a good game. Having fun is. If I deem a rule interferes with fun, the rule goes.

But if being a Munchkin means I refuse to play a character with what I call bad stats, then I am proud to be a munchkin. I never break the rules or go against the "logic" of the rules. Assuming the rules are logical is a whole other issue. So if those are the true definition of a Munchkin, then I am deeply offended.

Gee, now I don't know what I am. I am not a powergamer, and now I am not a munchkin. So what am I? I guess I am just someone who plays and DM's the game their own way. I wonder if there is a word for that?

 

[BryonD]

I like both terms and will continue to use them.

If "fluff" implies lack of value to you then you are being FAR to sensitive.

To me fluff has always meant lack of MECHANICAL substance.
I, like at least quite a few others, prefer products with a high crunch to fluff ratio. There appears to be some implication in this thread that this equates to not wanting any "flavor" That is 100% inaccurate. I do not want product fluff NOT because I don't want fluff. I do not want product fluff because I already have MY OWN fluff. Lots and lots of it.

I am very interesting in obtaining new mechanics to help expand and detail the fluff that I invent myself. I am very minimally interesting in buying other people's fluff in order to replace my own.

The terms fluff and cruch quickly and accurately give me a ballpark idea of what a given product focuses on. That is quite valueable to me.

 

[Creamsteak]

"Fluff, crunch, munchkin, flavor, grim & gritty."

Not really fond of any of them. And you can't really use any of them except grim & gritty in casual conversation with a non-gamer. Even then, it's out of place.

 

[BryonD]

I know, my book is only fluff and I like it...


joe b.

Hey Joe

Where you goin' with that crunch in your hand?



Seriously, I consider MMS:WE to be one of the best CRUNCH books I own. I use it all the time. And 95% of the time I am sitting at my laptop with Excel open, CRUNCHING numbers based on your guidance.

 

[DonAdam]

A more accurate analogy might be bones and meat; you don't have a `living' game without both.

However, I tremble at the thought of that analogy catching on.

"That NPC's motivation section is one hot piece of meat!"

"The guys over at Bad Axe are big boners!"

No, I think I'll stick to "fluff" and "crunch" because people know what I mean.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Of course the term "fluff" still has a place--in its dictionary meaning. If a book's text really is just padding, or otherwise useless, the term "fluff" still applies.

However, use of "fluff" as a standard term for non-mechanical writing carries the implication that all non-mechanical writing is useless. If I'm too sensitive for being irked by a word's meaning, so be it, but that is what the word means, after all.

A great portion of non-mechanical writing--non-crunch, if you will--is not "fluff" by the dictionary definition. It's this that I want to find a new term for.

 

[BryonD]

However, use of "fluff" as a standard term for non-mechanical writing carries the implication that all non-mechanical writing is useless. If I'm too sensitive for being irked by a word's meaning, so be it, but that is what the word means, after all.

Well, that is where we are going to 100% disagree. Because, afterall, that is not at all what it means.

 

[lord_banus]

I've always been quite partial to useing the term "Meat" for the non-crunch. It has a more wholesome resonance and implies it is the greater part of the document.

One term I would like to see fade away to oblivion is "nerfed". Though that may be a cultural thing as I have never experienced the actual material.

 

[diaglo]

"Is broken" should be obvious, something that doesn't work right.

and the phrase they sometimes accompanies it. "if ain't broke don't fix it."

"Got the shaft" refers to Phineas Gage back in 1848. He survived an iron shaft blown through his head. 3'7", 13.5 lbs, 1.25 inches across. Right through the skull. Messed him up real good. If it doesn't refer to Phineas it should.

i like the country western version...she got the gold mine and i got the shaft.

or the 70's version...he's a bad mutha...shut yer mouth...but i'm talkin' bout Shaft.

"Munchkin".. um... irritating little whiney creatures?

comes from wizard of Oz of course. they are member of the lollipop guild.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, that is where we are going to 100% disagree. Because, afterall, that is not at all what it means.

So the dictionary is wrong, then? I have no problem with sub-cultures--like role-players--developing our own slang. But we can't just completely ignore previous meanings and connotations when we do so, especially when the meaning of the word hasn't changed much. "Crunch" is not a word used to apply to written material outside the RPG culture, so its adaptation is pretty clear-cut. "Fluff," however, already has a literary meaning, so any attempt to coopt it is going to carry over that connotation, in the minds of a great number of people. (Not all, obviously, but many.)