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

[Saeviomagy]

So, basically you're whinging about the word fluff because you feel it has a negative connotation.

If the general public has the same feeling of a negative connotation, then why on earth would they want to apply it to a good thing?

Oh, wait. Maybe they MEAN the negative connotation.

I myself have never heard the word fluff applied to world setting material - that's usually called "setting". Mostly I hear it applied to the sort of stuff that's in those silly descriptions of classes (the ones that try to pidgeonhole classes into tiny little corners instead of trusting the player to work out what the class does?).

You know the sort of material. The ones which SOUND like they may be world setting stuff, but actually aren't? The ones which, while they do sound kinda interesting, don't really have an effect on the game, except perhaps giving people odd ideas about what the class (or whatever) actually is?

Likewise I've never heard the phrase crunch applied to any sort of core mechanic. Mostly crunch is used to apply to interesting little add on rules which, while they may be useful, are by no means essential.

Neither term applies to "stuff that is currently being used in my campaign verbatim".

So I think dragon had it spot on - they're full of things which are nice, are either mechanical or non-mechanical in nature, but ultimately are not likely to see usage in a game as-is.

 

[BryonD]

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.)

Please.

You really are WAY to sensitive.

I don't expect them to add a dictionary defintion of fluff just for the RPGers any time soon. I'd advise you not to hang your emotions on it.

The dictionary is not wrong but your application of it here IS.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Please.

You really are WAY to sensitive.

I don't expect them to add a dictionary defintion of fluff just for the RPGers any time soon. I'd advise you not to hang your emotions on it.

The dictionary is not wrong but your application of it here IS.

The problem is that the dictionary definition is the default--especially for newbies.

I've spoken to several people who were only recently introduced to the term "fluff"--in the sense we've been using it on EN World--and every last one of them assumed it was being used negatively until I explained the "crunch/fluff" dychotomy.

If you don't feel this is an issue, that's fine. It's not exactly top in my list of "Important Things To Do Today," myself. But it bugs me, it's bugged me for some time, and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests it really does give people the wrong impression.

 

[BryonD]

The problem is that the dictionary definition is the default--especially for newbies.

I've spoken to several people who were only recently introduced to the term "fluff"--in the sense we've been using it on EN World--and every last one of them assumed it was being used negatively until I explained the "crunch/fluff" dychotomy.

If you don't feel this is an issue, that's fine. It's not exactly top in my list of "Important Things To Do Today," myself. But it bugs me, it's bugged me for some time, and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests it really does give people the wrong impression.

Are you saying that there are no terms you use here that don't exactly match the so-called default dictionary defintion?

But I can't even begin to see this as an issue. I see the term used over and over and my experience is that people understand EXACTLY what is MEANT. Clearly we travel in different circles.

If it bugs you, fine, it bugs you. You said that if I don't find it to be an issue then that is fine. I will take that as your blessing to continue to use lingo in a manner that clearly and easily communicates an idea. Thanks

 

[WizarDru]

But I can't even begin to see this as an issue. I see the term used over and over and my experience is that people understand EXACTLY what is MEANT. Clearly we travel in different circles.

Just to make sure, you do appreciate Ari's perspective, right? Like several posters here, he is a published author in a variety of places, including articles in Dragon and elsewhere...so I would assume that he views the use of the term as, to some small degree, a commentary on his work.

 

[BryonD]

Just to make sure, you do appreciate Ari's perspective, right? Like several posters here, he is a published author in a variety of places, including articles in Dragon and elsewhere...so I would assume that he views the use of the term as, to some small degree, a commentary on his work.

"See" his point, I suppose. But I honestly don't accept it at all. I think he is being seriously thin skinned.

If he produces crap it is crap.
If he produces great stuff it is great stuff.

The terms "fluff" and "crunch" can both be placed in either of those sentences without slightly changing their truth.

If he is bent out of shape because he is forcing a definition outside of common usage on a term someone perhaps used in regard to something he wrote, then, frankly, that is even more difficult to take seriously. (I am NOT saying this is the case, I am simply replying within the context of your statement)

 

[Mouseferatu]

If he is bent out of shape because he is forcing a definition outside of common usage on a term someone perhaps used in regard to something he wrote, then, frankly, that is even more difficult to take seriously. (I am NOT saying this is the case, I am simply replying within the context of your statement)

Nope. No relation to my work at all. Just something that's been slowly building after months if not longer of seeing the terms in use, and seeing other people react to it.

I don't particularly feel that I'm "thin-skinned." It's not as though I'm taking some sort of personal offense at this. I just think it's a poorly chosen, misleading term that could be replaced by something a lot clearer. I dislike the (apparent) trend among some RPers (not accusing any specific person of any specific thing) of dismissing non-mechanical stuff as useless, and I feel that this particular choice of terms is a symptom of that, even if many people using it don't think of it that way.

But of course, you don't need my permission to continue using "fluff," if that's what you want to do. Trust me, I'm not "thin-skinned" enough to take it personally.

 

[Red Baron]

[In case you're wondering, I'm being silly...]

You may assume that the "beef" to which I referred was tainted by Mad Cow, and had no bearing on, or relation to, good and delicious beef.

Well, I am thin-skinned, and I can see the anti-Canuck sentiment you're trying to build up here -- Mad Cow is not our fault. Straw man. Ad hominem. Shame on you, Mouseferatu! Shame on you!!

 

[jgbrowning]

I think ari's just pointing out that there is a pre-existing negative definition to "fluff" (not only literary, but in other ways, such as "that's a fluffy person" meaning one of no substance) while that's not the case with "crunch." I think many gamers don't use the word with that bias, but for new players, the bias is there.

And to be honest, even though my latest has zero, zilch, nada crunch in it, I still have a negative bias to to the term "fluff." I think that has more to do with a english major background than anything else. I find myself trying not to discribe my book (EDIT: sorry, I mean A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture, not MMS:WE) as %100 fluff for that reason. I think there is an underlying negativity there and I'd rather not have to work around that. However, I think that may be true of any two words used to describe a "process" as opposed to an "asthetic." Generally, I think we tend to favor things that are dynamic and able to be manipulated (crunch) as opposed to things that are static (fluff).

From my writer's perspective fluff is more manipulatible (new word!) than crunch. Probably why I prefer to write it. The rules seem static during the creation act, but become active after the creation is done. Kinda ironic...

joe "fluffy and proud of it " b.

 

[Darkness]

Hey, you back me on my little quest to eradicate the annoying term "Munchkin", and I'll back your little coup d'etat.

Only a munchkin would say that.